The Three Hard Truths - The Case for Full Inclusive Democracy
By Suflan Shamsuddin for The Malaysian Insider
There are 3 hard truths about politics in Malaysia, whether you like it or not:
* Race and religion remains the primary criterion for political choice (meaning to say, that a significant number of votes are cast essentially in support of or in rejection of race/religious-based politics).
* Any party that lacks the support of a key community in Malaysia is 'non-inclusive' and is seen as hostile to such community's interest.
The more asymmetrical and non-inclusive are the choices of opposition political parties at an election, the greater the risk of social instability and the likelihood of government intervention to quell such volatility.
* The government's intervention to manage social instability is somewhat legitimised by the fact that behind it lies a coalition of political parties that is 'inclusive' in nature (the Barisan Nasional), in that it represents and has the support of all key Malaysian communities under a power-sharing model.
Unfortunately though, there is a clear conflict of interest between this duty to intervene to manage societal instability and the natural desire to remain in power and to implement its policies.
And it is this conflict that will play havoc with our nation building ambitions, no matter the best of intentions.
What is the impact of these hard truths? Well, given how asymmetrical and non-inclusive political choices are in Malaysia, with the presence of a disparate group of non-inclusive and contradictory bedfellows in Pakatan Rakyat (in particular DAP and PAS), social instability occasioning government intervention remains high. In the past, before the advent of PKR and its success of bringing both PAS and DAP into Pakatan Rakyat, the volatility was even worse, given that PAS and DAP are non-inclusive and operated independently on opposite sides of the political spectrum. One only needs to look back at the Mahathir era for examples of how such volatility was managed by executive intervention.
What shape does such intervention take? There are 'power prerogatives' which are exercised to quell dissent, such as the application of laws like the ISA, the control over the media, the judiciary, and intellectual freedom, the restraint of governmental transparency, and the containment of intra-party and inter-party strife and uprisings, just to name a few. There is also patronage, exercised in favour of those whose skills, network and influence might help protect the status quo.
The notion of Ketuanan Melayu and similar mantras are utilised to highlight the marginalisation of certain communities as a means to justify the incumbent's political relevance (to support the premise that it is better to select the devil you know, than the non-inclusive devil that you don't, who will do nothing to help such marginalised communities).
The net effect of this intervention is a deeply divided country where there is little trust in its democratic institutions, the government, and the rule of law.
And things have got from bad to worse, particularly since 1969, when such societal instability truly ruptured, and exposed our worst characteristics.
Are the March 8 election results a sign that we are moving in the right direction? Unfortunately not.
Because for so long as there remains doubt as to the credentials of Pakatan Rakyat as a truly inclusive, stable, power-sharing coalition that can represent the interests of all Malaysians, the executive and Barisan Nasional will continue to intervene to manage perceived social instability using the same tactics as they did before with the same dire consequences, regardless of who is at its helm.
All reforms introduced (including with regards to, for example, the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) will be good in form, but not in substance, because the executive needs to retain its teeth to maintain societal equilibrium, and by doing so, ensure the status quo. Barisan Nasional will also continue to encourage the rupture of Pakatan Rakyat.
If indeed Pakatan Rakyat collapses, for whatever reason, then the country will revert to a situation in which there is even more social instability for which executive intervention becomes even more justified. And the merry-go-round will continue ad nauseam, until the country is one day torn apart and blood is spilt on the streets.
What is important to notice is that, if my analysis is correct, then all sides of the political divide are equally culpable for the state that we are in. The opposition parties are culpable for maintaining their non-inclusive configuration that creates the threat of societal volatility; and the government parties are culpable, for being unable to manage the conflict that is created when intervening to manage the social instability created by the presence of such asymmetric and non-inclusive political opposition parties.
The Malaysian electorate is also to blame; some, for continuing to demand the right to make selfish non-inclusive political choices that suits their narrow interests but is hostile to the interest of other communities; and others for flaunting their chauvinism under the banner of a 'seemingly' equitable and inclusive political joint venture of the Barisan Nasional.
We must realise our collective guilt as to why we are where we are, and set aside our differences to address this problem as a nation once and for all. We must reset our paradigm and fix the fundamentals.
So what is the real answer to this conundrum? It is actually very simple; although it requires political tenacity and courage from all sides. Firstly, PAS, DAP and PKR must merge into a single inclusive power-sharing party or coalition that can truly appeal to all Malaysians.
Secondly, parliament must by a change in the law and constitution, exclude any non-inclusive parties from ever participating in the Malaysian democratic process, other than by way of being in a stable inclusive coalition.
Thirdly, the Barisan Nasional government must then earnestly dismantle the mechanisms by which executive intervention would have otherwise been exercised, since asymmetrical and non-inclusive parties that create the societal instability for which such intervention might have been justified, would now have been removed permanently.
So the solution requires compromise on all sides. Once that happens, than the powers of a free market democracy, in which two equally inclusive alternative choices that is acceptable to all Malaysians, will play its role to ensure that transparency, good governance and the rule of law will be protected, no matter whether it is Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional that is in power.
Only then will we have the makings of a stable, united, democratic and free country.
To this end, I implore both the government and the opposition parties to sit down together and work this critical change for the sake of the country.
By Suflan Shamsuddin for The Malaysian Insider
There are 3 hard truths about politics in Malaysia, whether you like it or not:
* Race and religion remains the primary criterion for political choice (meaning to say, that a significant number of votes are cast essentially in support of or in rejection of race/religious-based politics).
* Any party that lacks the support of a key community in Malaysia is 'non-inclusive' and is seen as hostile to such community's interest.
The more asymmetrical and non-inclusive are the choices of opposition political parties at an election, the greater the risk of social instability and the likelihood of government intervention to quell such volatility.
* The government's intervention to manage social instability is somewhat legitimised by the fact that behind it lies a coalition of political parties that is 'inclusive' in nature (the Barisan Nasional), in that it represents and has the support of all key Malaysian communities under a power-sharing model.
Unfortunately though, there is a clear conflict of interest between this duty to intervene to manage societal instability and the natural desire to remain in power and to implement its policies.
And it is this conflict that will play havoc with our nation building ambitions, no matter the best of intentions.
What is the impact of these hard truths? Well, given how asymmetrical and non-inclusive political choices are in Malaysia, with the presence of a disparate group of non-inclusive and contradictory bedfellows in Pakatan Rakyat (in particular DAP and PAS), social instability occasioning government intervention remains high. In the past, before the advent of PKR and its success of bringing both PAS and DAP into Pakatan Rakyat, the volatility was even worse, given that PAS and DAP are non-inclusive and operated independently on opposite sides of the political spectrum. One only needs to look back at the Mahathir era for examples of how such volatility was managed by executive intervention.
What shape does such intervention take? There are 'power prerogatives' which are exercised to quell dissent, such as the application of laws like the ISA, the control over the media, the judiciary, and intellectual freedom, the restraint of governmental transparency, and the containment of intra-party and inter-party strife and uprisings, just to name a few. There is also patronage, exercised in favour of those whose skills, network and influence might help protect the status quo.
The notion of Ketuanan Melayu and similar mantras are utilised to highlight the marginalisation of certain communities as a means to justify the incumbent's political relevance (to support the premise that it is better to select the devil you know, than the non-inclusive devil that you don't, who will do nothing to help such marginalised communities).
The net effect of this intervention is a deeply divided country where there is little trust in its democratic institutions, the government, and the rule of law.
And things have got from bad to worse, particularly since 1969, when such societal instability truly ruptured, and exposed our worst characteristics.
Are the March 8 election results a sign that we are moving in the right direction? Unfortunately not.
Because for so long as there remains doubt as to the credentials of Pakatan Rakyat as a truly inclusive, stable, power-sharing coalition that can represent the interests of all Malaysians, the executive and Barisan Nasional will continue to intervene to manage perceived social instability using the same tactics as they did before with the same dire consequences, regardless of who is at its helm.
All reforms introduced (including with regards to, for example, the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) will be good in form, but not in substance, because the executive needs to retain its teeth to maintain societal equilibrium, and by doing so, ensure the status quo. Barisan Nasional will also continue to encourage the rupture of Pakatan Rakyat.
If indeed Pakatan Rakyat collapses, for whatever reason, then the country will revert to a situation in which there is even more social instability for which executive intervention becomes even more justified. And the merry-go-round will continue ad nauseam, until the country is one day torn apart and blood is spilt on the streets.
What is important to notice is that, if my analysis is correct, then all sides of the political divide are equally culpable for the state that we are in. The opposition parties are culpable for maintaining their non-inclusive configuration that creates the threat of societal volatility; and the government parties are culpable, for being unable to manage the conflict that is created when intervening to manage the social instability created by the presence of such asymmetric and non-inclusive political opposition parties.
The Malaysian electorate is also to blame; some, for continuing to demand the right to make selfish non-inclusive political choices that suits their narrow interests but is hostile to the interest of other communities; and others for flaunting their chauvinism under the banner of a 'seemingly' equitable and inclusive political joint venture of the Barisan Nasional.
We must realise our collective guilt as to why we are where we are, and set aside our differences to address this problem as a nation once and for all. We must reset our paradigm and fix the fundamentals.
So what is the real answer to this conundrum? It is actually very simple; although it requires political tenacity and courage from all sides. Firstly, PAS, DAP and PKR must merge into a single inclusive power-sharing party or coalition that can truly appeal to all Malaysians.
Secondly, parliament must by a change in the law and constitution, exclude any non-inclusive parties from ever participating in the Malaysian democratic process, other than by way of being in a stable inclusive coalition.
Thirdly, the Barisan Nasional government must then earnestly dismantle the mechanisms by which executive intervention would have otherwise been exercised, since asymmetrical and non-inclusive parties that create the societal instability for which such intervention might have been justified, would now have been removed permanently.
So the solution requires compromise on all sides. Once that happens, than the powers of a free market democracy, in which two equally inclusive alternative choices that is acceptable to all Malaysians, will play its role to ensure that transparency, good governance and the rule of law will be protected, no matter whether it is Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional that is in power.
Only then will we have the makings of a stable, united, democratic and free country.
To this end, I implore both the government and the opposition parties to sit down together and work this critical change for the sake of the country.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment