by Rashid Karim
Bush won his first election by winning in the state of Florida by less than 0.01% of the vote. The Blair govenment had only 55% of the seats in Parliament in 2005. But in Malaysia, BN had 10 times more seats in parliament compared to the collective opposition in the last election, a win unthinkable in US, UK or any other (properly democratic) country . As much as the government is criticized for being inefficient or unfair, the fact that they have a 92% majority should not be ignored. The question is are we being unreasonable by criticizing the government? Aren’t we just the small minority who should know our place, and shut up? Is being critical towards this greatly supported government effectively undermining the wants of the masses? Are we indirectly declaring democracy ineffective?
This argument can certainly be made, and quite strongly at that. But does this mean that all these criticisms are unjustified? The international community has said nothing but praise about Malaysia’s economic strength, national unity and rich cultural heritage. Well, in the Malaysian media at least. Not everything is reported back home. Malaysia is said to be practicing a warped form of apartheid. We are considered to have lost our economic competitive edge to countries like Thailand and Vietnam due to inefficiency and corruption. Our constitution has been under attack for being contradictory with regards to freedom of religion. This and much more. The international community did not vote our government in, but does this make these points untrue? The answers to this lies in many debates ahead. The point I am trying to make here (and it’s a very obvious point) is that democratic legitimacy does not confer moral or legal legitimacy to actions of the government. It does not matter if they had the votes of the Malaysian public, they are still bound by principles of human rights and morality and must serve in the best interest of the public.
Comments? You think this is right, or should we really shut up?
Another question worth looking at is why BN got such a big mandate from the Malaysian people. Is it because Malaysians generally share the same values and expectations and BN happened to match this? This could arguably be the case. Or could it be because they have proven to be effective leaders in previous years? This could also be the case. However lets consider this question from a broader point of view. After all, there has been a lot of criticism towards the government, as although as highlighted above, a lot of it comes from the international community, the bulk of it I would assume is from the very voters who gave them power in the first place. Why would they vote for BN if they don’t always agree with BN’s approach to governance?
The answer is never black and white. Maybe the first two points above are correct, but to an extent. BN does, to an extent, reflect the values of the majority. They are a multi-racial body, moderately religious and largely capitalist. To an extent, this does reflect Malaysian society, and so BN may be considered an appropriate representative. They have been running the country since our independence, and we have grown economically since then and so to an extent, they have proven themselves capable. But is this all we really wanted? It is true they have done a lot, but is it enough? Given all the opportunities they had, given all the resources they had, could they have done more? I think most will answer in the affirative for this.
Could it be then the majority did not want BN per se, but rather was forced to settle for BN for lack of a better opposition? This question cannot, and should not be answered, because answering it would be to assume to an unreasonable degree the preferences of the Malaysians public. It would, however, be an interesting question to reflect on personally.
Comments? Or is this post just pointless? I know there is no resolution to be made here, but I feel keeping these issues in mind may help with further discussion on other topics. Also, I got bored and so decided to ramble, and since I’m moderator, I get to put up anything I want…
Have fun everyone. And take care.
9 comments:
there is no reason for a democratically legitimate government to serve the public (in fact, there is absolutely no reason why they should); the only impetus for power politics is winning. simplistically, politics is a game of consequences, not of causes. what i'm inarticulate trying to express is this: that no one joins politics to serve, they do it to win.
with this in mind, is there any reason why a government should not be allowed to destroy the country? in any other state, if there were an overwhelming majority (coupled with an extremist-propaganda spouting opposition), the same case would probably replay itself ad infinitum.
p.s. the fact that we're stuck with BN is (underlying) public sentiment - no assumption is really needed, it's not a particularly tricky question.
To anonymous, your rather dystopian outlook concerning the absence of a governmental duty to serve the public troubles me somewhat. Surely a democratic govt which acts contrary to the public interest would not only be unconstitutional but illegitimate without the support of the governed.
Besides, assuming the impetus for power politics is winning, and retaining power, it would be in the best interest of the government of the day to rule in the best interests of the country as a whole. Why would a government displease the voters if it wanted to remain in power?
In response to the article, the overwhelming majority that BN consistently obtains is not an accurate reflection of its standard of governance.
It has not gone unnoticed that when election season comes round, the front page of each and every newspaper advertises the ruling coalition, singing its praises and giving it free publicity. There is scarce mention of the opposition parties, and when there is, more often than not they are portrayed in a bad light.
Rumours abound that printed media in Malaysia are controlled by the government(directly or indirectly). I have no evidence to prove this, but I would not be shocked if this was the case. Without an impartial media, the opposition hardly stands a chance.
There is no lack of criticism of BN, but why are the opposition parties crippled by a lack of supporters? To my mind, this phenomenon arises out of fear.
Fear of many things. Fear of the ISA. Fear of being blacklisted by the government. Fear of being overlooked when tendering for public projects.
We, as a people, should not fear for standing up for our beliefs, whether religious, moral, or political. Our voices need to be heard. If they fall on deaf ears, I hope the echoes will ring true in the ears of our future leaders.
Barisan Nasional, remember this, fear and respect are two different animals. Only the latter is earned.
you're harping on a different tangent. i'm not justifying BN's actions, i'm just saying that there is no reason why they should be doing what they are.
i'm not saying that a government should not serve its people; i'm saying that democracy is not a system which requires the govt to serve the people.
hence, a democratic government acting against public sentiment may be foolish, but surely it isn't unconstitutional?
anyway, the whole part about not allowing the opposition to splash themselves across headlines is true, but also inconsequential; when the opposition harbours views which are possibly extremist in nature, there's no reason for people to vote for them, frontpage or no frontpage.
Democracy as practiced today just allows the powerful and rich to gain support. Votes are bought with kenduri’s and promises to benefit the people. This promise of benefit will usually be seen on the year of election. There will suddenly be projects sprouting here and there. The parties will change their attitude towards certain issues depending on what they think the public wants. In the 1999 election, the UMNO and PAS were both competing to be the most ‘muslim’ group, as at that time it was apparently the cool thing to be. In the 2004 election, these same two parties were competing to be the more moderate practical one. Parties evolve to stay alive, not to fight. They are not here to promote certain ideologies, they are here because they adopt certain ideologies.
And all this happens on the year of election. The years in between they give contracts to themselves, and in turn destroying the country… and this is not necessarily a bad thing for them. Who remembers what you did three years ago. All people care about is how they look now, and with this sprout of projects, and a growth in the economy, and the promises of benefits and justice, they seem all the more sweeter. Parties look more attractive saving a dying country (even if they are the ones who caused it) than maintaining a healthy country. This is democracy today. Not only in Malaysia, but anywhere….
anonymous 2
everyone's agreeing on the facts.
point is that it's not a dystopian view of govt (anymore.) it would be worth pointing out that julian's view, would be in fact, utopian.
original anonymous.
to slashed:
nope. in any case, and you can thoroughly go through the tenures of blair and bush if you'd like, power politics is always the order of the day. underneath the thread of manifesto is the need to appeal to the people to get voted in again and again; that, by definition, is power politics - politics for the sake of it.
like weber would point out, power politics is a game of vanity, but there really was never a democracy which served the people as much as it purported to in the first place.
democracy's sort of a sham in that the executive's embedded in the parliament anyway, and that's the same of most of the developed countries you wish to draw to our attention. all the political doctrines you wish to rely on (SoP, deomcracy) are flawed inherently, dialectically.
so, really, if you look slightly harder, we're not all that cynical; we're just being extraordinarily realistic. cynicism would be the disparaging of an idea which has yet to take off - when everything's baded on hindsight, it's probably just history talking.
also i should point out that another underlying point to the thread that serving is a corollary to winning - we serve to win, and not vice-versa. that is in itself power politics. the original point really, is that bn doesnt have to serve, because it's already winning; if it had to win, it'd be forced to serve.
and i don't think the electorate is to blame if the opposition's rubbish to begin with.
(god, i really have to learn to reply it all in one coherent thread.)
random point:
Even if democracy worked, it would still be rather crap. In most cases, to make real change, you need to do it drastically. A piecemeal approach is doomed to fail. There would be too many compromises, too many people to satisfy. A drastic approach, however, will get you thrown out of the government.
Also, if it works, there will be (we can assume) a change in government now and then. How will anything get done if one government starts something, and they next government comes along and starts something new? We’ll be in a constant limbo, floating around… like a buoy in the sea. Up and down but going nowhere…
You may be right in saying that the best practical system is probably democracy. However, idealistically speaking, the best would be a fair dictator. They get things done! Since this is only a theoretical concept, mankind is bound to remain stagnant… killing ourselves slowly with global warming and McDonalds.
Get things done! Forget crap compromise! Forget being politically correct! Stop being sensitive! There is more to life than getting fattened up and then melting into a puddle of grease. Just get it done!
Rosy Cheeks
Post a Comment