RESET: Race Politics (Part Two)
By Suflan Shamsuddin
Good comeback, Gerard. Let us indeed face facts. But where on earth were the facts to come from. We'd never know, in today's environment, what the facts really are, nor would we independently know the motive behind actions that such facts might suggest were carried out. It was getting late and the debate was obviously not going to take us anywhere. These were legitimate arguments on all sides that simply could not be ignored. It was good that we were as close friends as we were. Everyone had said his or her piece. Even though the debate was frank and honest, it was done without any person feeling less of the other. That was important because the discussion could have easily degenerated very quickly into a shouting match if we weren't good friends.
I enjoyed the interaction. I thought myself lucky to have a group of friends that could speak as openly as we did. I just wondered how many other coffee tables across Malaysia had witnessed similar conversations that evening. By this time, the restaurant was about ready to close up. So there was not much left to do other than to wish everyone well, promise to stay in touch and meet up the next time that I am home, and to pay the bill. The next morning I was on a plane back to Holland.
It became clear that a discussion on the merits of race-based politics would be necessary for this book because if Malaysians cannot agree as to the place of race-based politics in Malaysia, it will become difficult, if not impossible, to explain the case that I want to make about the inherent problems caused by the environment in which Malaysian democracy operates. I had stayed relatively quiet throughout the discussion because I wanted to be in listening mode. I wanted to make sure that my response would sufficiently take account of the concerns that each of my friends had expressed.
To me the issue was simply this. Should parties who represent the interest of special communities be allowed to get the mandate of the electorate? It did not matter whether the special interest that they were representing was race, religion, colour, gender or whatever. For example, could you have a party that represented the interest of all left-handed members of the public? On the basis that too long have people who are left-handed been discriminated against, and therefore it would only be right that the interests of the left-handed should be protected.
You could say the same of a party that represents the interests of women only. After all, in Malaysia, as in many Asian societies, women have been discriminated against. It could be argued that women have not been able to realize their full potential, and been expected to take on responsibilities over the family to their prejudice. So why should there not be a party that represents the interest of the fairer sex?
If there were more women than men, and the demand was there, and it was able to secure a mandate to be represented in parliament and in fact form a government, what would prevent such a women's party from doing what all race-based parties are doing? That is, to maintain its place on the political landscape by perpetuating the myth of its relevance, long past its sell-by date? After all, is that not the key to its own survival as a relevant political force? The discussion would be no different then the discussion that I had had with my friends about race politics.
I think it is impossible to prevent the creation of special interest parties if the demand is truly there. To legislate against such parties would be thoroughly undemocratic. But I do think that to allow a special interest party to offer its candidate when it can only ever represent a portion of a constituency's electorate, would violate the principle of full democratic participation. As an example, a Green party might be a special interest party, but if all Malaysians felt equally committed to the environment, such a party would represent the interest of all Malaysians. However, if a party that represents the interests of women only were allowed to offer a candidate for a constituency election, then all men would have been denied a choice of voting for such a party, and would therefore be forced to either choose from the remaining candidates, or to simply abstain from voting. Neither of such outcomes is fully consistent with the principle of full democratic participation.
If on the other hand, the all-women's party was to form a coalition with an all-men's party, then arguably the electorate would indeed have a choice to choose this coalition. Because all men, as well as all women, would be able to look at the collective manifesto of the coalition, to determine whether or not policies that help to promote the nation along gender lines, taking account the interest of both genders, would be in their best interests.
If that was my argument, then I could not fault the presence of Barisan Nasional in the electoral landscape, if indeed each of the parties therein represented the interest of a particular stakeholder who demanded that such interests be protected, and that such parties form a coalition with other parties, which when seen together represents the interest of all Malaysians, and therefore a viable choice to the whole of the electorate.
That argument is based purely on a position that is in favour of an inclusive and broad-based democracy, leaving the electorate to exercise the choice of whether it wants to support a special interest party, provided that such party was within a coalition of parties which has a workable power-sharing formula, and which could be seen as collectively representing the interest of all members of the public.
There is another important point to make. Some parties might still be race-based and protecting the special interests of a specific community even if their requirement for membership and its constitution suggests otherwise. What if a political party had only Chinese members? Most neutral observers would doubt such party's credentials as a broad-based and inclusive party. You would therefore need to look beyond the form and look at the substance. If such a party has no support from a major stakeholder community, it says to me, that such a party is simply not broadly
representative of the interest of all Malaysians, regardless of race, and is just as guilty of being considered a party that protects the interest of a special interest grouping to the exclusion of others. And the same concerns around the lack of broad representation would apply.
The same could be said about a party that is based on a desire to create an Islamic theocratic state. No matter how appealing it is made to entice non-Muslims, the purpose behind such a party is still ultimately for the benefit of the Muslims. It is inconceivable to think that such an ideology is broadly inclusive for all Malaysians, given that it has to recognize the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims in a way that ultimately results in each of these communities being treated differently.
What about the appropriateness of a special interest party in the general elections per se? Could you not argue that the presence of such parties, whether race-based, gender-based, whether in a coalition or not is simply morally reprehensible, because it suggests that a dominant party may put the interest of a special community before it does of all Malaysians? I think the challenge is valid, but I find that a rather difficult argument to support, simply because I believe that democracy must mean the freedom to choose. Although as I said, my caveat is that such special interest parties must stand in a coalition that represents the interest of all Malaysians generally. If therefore such a dominant party is subject to the joint venture rules of the coalition, then provided such rules are enforceable, the interests of all Malaysians should be protected. It is not the existence of a dominant race-based party in a joint venture political coalition per se that could prevent such rules from being respected and enforced but instead the failure to have a system that ensures
that there is adherence to the fundamental principles of law and democracy.
Not long ago, the continent of Europe was plunged into a war that resulted in the deaths of millions. Only thirty years before that another Great War similarly took countless lives as did battles that raged along religious, and later nationalist lines, from the middle of the 14th century. Yet today, many citizens in countries in Europe are slowly beginning to think of themselves as Europeans before thinking of themselves as citizens of a particular country. Today, lawmakers in the institutions of the European Union make a large majority of laws that apply in countries within Europe collectively. The currency in Europe is the Euro. So attitudes do change, albeit over time.
Can this not happen in Malaysia? Meaning to say, why can't we imagine that even if today the demand remains as strong as ever for race-based politics, that attitudes will evolve, such that one day, we will think of ourselves as Malaysians first, and vote accordingly? Of course we should not be waiting for centuries and wars for this to happen, like my example of Europe. What we do need to ensure is that we have an environment in which such evolution can occur naturally, by the will and demand of the electorate, and that there is no unnatural suppression of such evolution. And in today's world of instantaneous communication and digital technology, such an evolution can occur in a matter of years or decades, as opposed to centuries.
The suppression of such an evolution can occur by unfair means and it is this that is morally reprehensible. Such suppression typically occurs when there is deliberate misinformation about the merits of alternative non race-based political models. Or where there is a failure of governance institutions and civil society to provide sufficient checks and balances against governmental abuse of authority to prevent such natural evolution from occurring. But that is a function of the failure of the core democratic principles that I had outlined earlier in the book than it is as a result of the presence of parties organizing themselves along race-based lines. So as opposed to attacking race-based politics, I would rather that we focused on ensuring that these democratic principles were safeguarded at all cost.
What about Ani and Gerard's view of how race-based politics entrenches a state of mind that is narrow and parochial, as a means of helping justify its own relevance. I could not agree more. But again, the issue is not to do with the prevalence of race-based politics as it is a function of an open and effective democracy being practiced. I believe that every individual has a right to determine how he or she wishes to vote. But what we cannot have is a situation in which the knowledge and understanding of what needs to be considered in casting that vote is suppressed by the powers that be.
Imagine if the shoe is on the other foot and the party that forms the government in power is a social democratic party that has broad support from all Malaysians. But there is a groundswell of support for the interests of communities to be looked after by community-based parties working together in a coalition. If in that example, the party in power uses its executive authority to quell such a groundswell by nefarious means, it would be as great an injustice as were community-based parties in BN to do likewise to DAP or PKR. So again, what is at stake is the fundamental workings of democracy.
And how about Thava's point that race-based politics as is practiced in Malaysia leads to the suppression of fair bargaining power of race-based parties other than UMNO? Again, I cannot disagree with this remark but the reason for this is a lack of a viable opposition of equal standing as BN. If there were one, then the fair bargaining power would be re-established, because those that negotiate can exercise choice to stay in the bargain or leave and join the viable opposition. So it is in the interest of democracy and fair bargaining power that socio-political forces are driven by the market and competition, without which a dominant monopoly can distort the fairness of the playing field.
In summary, my view is that it is not race-based politics that is at fault, provided that the interest of all Malaysians are protected in a power-sharing equation that can be honoured, but it is instead the challenge of adhering to the fundamental principles of democracy. We must understand the importance of allowing society to evolve on the basis of education, awareness and information, so that one day they may freely decide that an alternative non-race based political system is what is needed. The institutions that provide the checks and balances must ensure that these principles are adhered to, and remain robust, strong and independent from government intervention.
A Note To Readers:
This is Part Two of a chapter in the author's latest book - RESET: Rethinking the Malaysian Political Paradigm. Part One was previously published on Project Malaysia. Read it HERE.
RESET is available at all major Malaysian bookstores and is published by ZI Publications.
Suflan Shamsuddin qualified as a barrister from the Middle Temple and was then called to the Malaysian Bar. He is currently based in London, England.