This chapter explores the role of the monarch in facilitating political transition and in the constitutional governance of contemporary Malaysia. It sets the historical context for Malay kingship and its eventual form as a constitutional monarchy after Malaysia’s independence from British colonial rule. It then tells the story of the role played by the King – the Yang di-Pertuan Agong – during the country’s political transitions in 2018 and 2020. Following royal interventions between 2018 and 2021, the monarchy has emerged as a key actor in the formation and functioning of Malaysia's government. The chapter concludes with observations on some features of monarchy in Malaysia and the region and raises broader questions about the role of non-electoral institutions in safeguarding against incumbent capture or accelerating democratic erosion.

This essay explores different relationships between constitutional identity and constitutional politics. One purpose is descriptive. The first five sections briefly discuss the five relationships between constitutional identity and constitutional politics. Constitutional politics may be an instrumental means for achieving a particular constitutional identity; the means designed to achieve a particular constitutional identity; constitutive of constitutional identity; the constitutionally prescribed means for achieving a constitutional identity; or the constitutionally prescribed means for achieving any constitutional identity. The more fundamental goal is to undermine the “apple of gold” metaphor as a device for thinking about constitutional regimes. Constitutional politics in most constitutional regimes is as constitutive of constitutional identity as the substantive principles announced in such documents as the Declaration of Independence.

The chapter chronicles the emergence of religious minorities in late colonial constitutional politics. Efforts to actualize the missionary dream of winning souls took the form of self-determination advocacy in the late colonial years with Protestant advocates constructing the religious minorities as the group seeking self-determination. Although the religious minorities emerged to resist colonial rule, paradoxically, making that identity affirmed the Muslim-non-Muslim classification central to colonial governance. By telling a story of the oppression of Christians and diverse indigenous faiths based on their status as non-Muslims, Protestant advocates constructed an identity centered on its antithesis to Islam. That binary failed to capture the complex forms of exclusion that colonial governance of religion entailed. Although it purported to be inclusive of all non-Muslim concerns, self-determination advocacy overwhelmingly privileged the Protestant experience. Moreover, the religious minorities' identity excluded Muslim populations marginalized in the colonial state. The ultimate consequence was that the religious minorities project opened new doors to inequality.

This chapter examines the legacy of the colonial governance of religion. Those struggles have inherited the nation's complex colonial history as an essentialist debate between a Muslim camp advancing a Sharia renaissance agenda and opposed to secularism and a Christian camp opposing the Sharia project and championing the secularist separation of the state from religion. That memory of the colonial experience is borne of both sides' criticism of colonial rule; however, neither the drivers of the Sharia renaissance agenda nor their Christian critics are liberated from the history of imperial rule. Both seek the governance of religion in the manner of the colonial state they despise. As with actors in the colonial state, the postcolonial camps also deploy the notions of secularist separation and religious liberty in fluid ways, belying their arguments about their unconditional fidelity to either idea. The chapter, therefore, argues that imperial secular governmentality, which has survived into the postcolonial state, is far from the untroubled mode of domination it is often criticized as being. It is instead a domain of contestation.

The unwritten constitution of the United States includes the Aristotelian and Gödelian Constitutions, the various constitutions in and outside of the courts, and the features of distinctive constitutional regimes. This chapter details these unwritten constitutions and highlights the empirical dimensions of constitutionalism in general and of American constitutionalism in particular, emphasizing how the empirical and normative dimensions of constitutionalism cannot be separated. Constitutionalism is an intricate blend of law and politics, not a means of separating law from politics. Written and unwritten constitutional politics intertwine with written and unwritten constitutional law in ways ignored by both legal and political science versions of the law/politics distinction. This chapter also explores some dynamics in contemporary constitutional politics in the United States and shows that changes in unwritten constitutional politics have not yet been captured by written or unwritten constitutional law. Bringing the structure of constitutional politics back into the structure of constitutionalism promises better constitutional analysis and, perhaps, better constitutional practice.

Modern Thai constitutionalism, though often meaningful and rich in form and substance, has experienced great volatility since its inception in 1932. At the same time, behind the twenty constitutions that have emerged since then, some recurring ideal-typical figurations that have dominated certain periods of constitutional politics in Thailand can be observed. These historically derived ideal-typical notions of constitutional politics mostly represent inherently hegemonic conceptions. They are defined for instance by how they conceive western and autochthonous elements of constitutionalism, majoritarian electoral politics and the monarchy, the rule of law and authoritarian governance by men. This chapter explores some of the most significant historical experiences and ensuing figurations of Thai constitutionalism that together form a rich reservoir of different, sometimes diverging notions to understand and practice constitutional governance in Thailand.