Governance Without Politics?
By Nathaniel Tan
In the wake of Perak and the recent photograph scandal, it has become vogue once again among some commentators to decry the lowbrow quality of Malaysian politics. Hands wrung, some decry how politicians should instead be concentrating on problems of the economy, crime, education and so on.
I stand with those who hope for a cleaner brand of politics in Malaysia, just as I stand with those who hope that the focus of both our politics and our government is always first and foremost the interest of the rakyat, and not who is sleeping with who or who is being paid to join which party - nobody enjoys the mudslinging, backstabbing and skulduggery of politics.
However, I am also of the view that those who believe politics, in all its often unsavoury shapes and sizes, can be divorced from questions of good governance are misguided. Expecting politicians to act as saints, and turn away from wasteful political conflict to concentrate purely on governance demonstrates an lacking understanding of the game and its players.
Effective AdvocacyUnderstanding the nature of power and the behaviour of those who pursue it is fundamental in any endeavour to achieve good governance. Lack of such understanding will result in a reduced ability to advocate effectively for better governance, and a failure to advocate effectively renders most criticism empty and unhelpful.
It has been said that the first priority of those who obtain power is to determine how to keep it. Dealing with such tendencies towards self-interest, prevalent among politicians the world over, requires smart tactics, not moral preaching that holds no traction or real influence on their behaviour - however popular among the rakyat.
Those who seek to stay above politics, who categorically reject partisanship out of hand and seek to disassociate themselves and others from the process due to disillusionment very seldom further any commendable cause. Boycotting politicians has seldom been known to encourage them to change for the better; instead, it gives them freer rein to do as they please.
To be good advocates, we must be able to see things as politicians do - the same politicians who at the end of the day determine the quality of governance we receive. Let us take for instance the case of crossovers. How can any government be expected to function properly if it is facing an iminent threat of being replaced? (This applies equally to Perak in February and Malaysia last September)
With stakes that high, it is foolhardy for anyone to expect politics to take a backseat to governance. We talk of concentrating on the economy instead of being obsessed about crossovers for instance; but what economic policies can be properly formulated when the opportunity to implement them hangs so precariously in the balance?
While it is unwise to think of politics as the be all and end all of governance, we should remain aware of its centrality to it. Political change may not be enough to change everything that needed changing, but it appears that no meaningful improvement in Malaysia's governance and overall well-being can be achieved without considerable political change.
If we are to have a positive impact on politicians, and via politicians governance, we must deal in a currency that they understand and respect. In the case of most democracies, that currency is votes and the ability to influence them.
The Perfect vs. The Good
It stands to reason that taking some side in politics is often one of the most effective ways to achieve better governance. Like any industry, a political landscape that is monopolised can only lead to abuse.
There is an understandable disdain among many towards partisanship. The primary reasons for this appear to be a desire to hold one's head high above the 'dirty' fray and an inability to support wholeheartedly such obviously tainted and imperfect political parties. Some would rather support no one than support a party that does not reflect their beliefs impeccably and meet equally impeccable moral standards.
Herein lies an opportunity to explore whether the perfect is indeed the enemy of the good.
In my view, the conscientious citizen should adopt a tiered approach to the improvemnet of government, with a view not to achieve perfect governance, but to achieve better governance.
When faced with imperfect choices, said conscientious citizen should either chose the best of those available, or become a new choice by his or herself. Should the better choice one day become government, the conscientious citizen should not rest on laurels and blindly support his or her previous political nominee, but rather hold them to exacting and unforgiving standards.
Replacing one government with another does not mean sacrificing standards such as the need for healthy competition, loyalty to principle rather than individuals, and so on. Even the most ardent supporters of a political party should be willing to turn critic if said party fails to live up to its promises and principles.
The point however, is that we should be looking towards a positive gradient of change, where each successive government is better than the last - even if it fails to be the perfect government that we all dream of.
Needless to say, better individuals alone are not enough to ensure a brighter future. As we try to improve Malaysia's government, we must also form a view as to improving her institutions and incentive structures.
In the great game of politics, politicians - with the rare gems of exception - are players who tend to behave and react fairly predictably to the circumstances around them. This tends to involve a great deal of Machiavellian self-interest.
We can indeed hope to educate a better, more enlightened generation of Malaysians from which might emerge a more noble cadre of politicians. Instead of putting all our hopes in that basket of eggs however, it may be wise to also think extensively on how to influence the rules and parameters of the game, instead of merely attempting to change the players.
Here, the manner in which politicians are rewarded and punished - be it via the ballot box, the courts, the court of public opinion, and so on - must be meditated upon extensively. It is our duty to support politicians who (at least) pledge to strengthen institutions of checks and balance, allow more punitive measures against those who act against the public interest, and introduce greater incentives to those who act for it.
At the end of the day, it is more likely than not that these changes, should they ever be realised, will be realised by politicians themselves. Our job as citizens is either to identify and support the best politicians available who are most likely to institute such reforms, or to ourselves answer the call to public service and become those politicians.
Nathaniel Tan blogs at ww.jelas.info. He is 28, addicted to far too many vices, and tries to keep the bottom line at the forefront of his thoughts on activism and politics.