Fight feudalism fairly

IN the developing conflict between monarchs, politicians and the government, the question of feudalism has once again been raised.

The concept of feudalism harkens back to medieval times, and was essentially a social contract of sorts that described the relationship between a feudal lord and his serf.

The basic arrangement was this: the serf was expected to give complete loyalty exclusively to his feudal lord, fight for him when called upon, and to serve him obediently without question.

The feudal lord in turn, was responsible for ensuring that the serf was able to meet his basic living needs, and importantly, for organising the protection of the serfs whenever necessary.

Feudalism was the predominant political system prior to the introduction of the larger state, in which a centralised government laid claim to all legitimate means of violence – the overarching leviathan envisioned by philosopher Thomas Hobbes that was meant to prevent the use of violence as a means to resolve conflict between two parties by reserving legitimate violence for a third party: the state.

Prior to the existence of such a state, sociopolitical units were basically responsible for their own protection.

The more common use of the word “feud”, from which the term “feudal” is derived, denotes “a prolonged quarrel or dispute”.

The concept was this: if feudal lord A or his underlings attacked anyone aligned to feudal lord B, feudal lord B was then obliged to retaliate violently, and thus institute a feud between A and B.

The reason for this was simple: deterrence. Each feudal lord had to show that attacking him would bring about swift consequences in the form of violent retaliation.

Without such a deterrent, a feudal lord would be seen as weak, making both himself and his serfs exposed to the threat of being seen as easy prey.

In this context, the absolute loyalty of the serf to the feudal lord was deemed necessary because their lives depended on it. Questions of value or principle did not enter the picture; there was only complete loyalty and subservience, in exchange for protection and patronage.

This political system existed for a long time – until larger states emerged, violent conflict was outlawed, and any conflict arising between different individuals or groups was mediated by the all-powerful state.

Even as feudalism disappeared as a political system, the culture of feudalism did not.

Enduring till this present day is the phenomenon in which modern day “serfs” and “feudal lords” in politics feel the need to enter into a relationship of absolute loyalty, which comes before principles or integrity.

In this mentality, political underlings feel that their every thought, word and deed needs to be guided by the question: how does this benefit my boss?

This philosophy then begins to supersede anything else – including personal integrity, respect for the rule of law, and even the most basic ethical standards.

The degree to which this approach has corroded the proper functioning of representative democracy cannot possibly be understated.

Feudal thinking makes a mockery of institutions that were designed to enshrine accountability, transparency and the rule of law.

In place of feudalism and blind loyalty to leaders should be a firm commitment to sound principles, in which decisions are made based on integrity, transparency and what benefits the nation the most as a whole – not just a select few people.

When we criticise feudalism, especially in Malaysia, objectivity requires that we criticise it in all spheres of government – this includes those in non-elected positions, as well as those in elected positions.

Obsessive loyalty towards either of these types of leaders will lead us down a regressive path, and hamper Malaysia’s progress and development as a nation.

In whatever sphere – political, professional, and even personal – there must always be space to question figures of authority. The shrinking of this space can only lead down a path towards dictatorship and institutional rot.

Needless to say, we should look to do so politely and civilly. It is not right to say that criticism should only ever be made in private; if we are sincere about our strategic aims however, it seems more objective to admit that there are times when using private rather than public channels can better help us achieve our ultimate goals.

In the most recent controversy, I agree with those who call for a more legalistic, technical approach.

Actors who are directly involved in the conflict are unlikely to be seen as impartial experts on subjects such as constitutional law.

For views on how to approach the legal angles of the problem at hand, the best route seems to be to consult with constitutional and legal experts who have already demonstrated a degree of objectivity and neutrality.

Ultimately, it is such cooler heads that must hopefully prevail, so the nation can disentangle itself from these political wars of attrition in which no one benefits, while the rakyat are left neglected by the wayside.

There is a very long list of things to be done, and of national and local problems that need to be solved. Hopefully, a recalibration of priorities and refocusing on things that really matter is not far off on the horizon. 


> NATHANIEL TAN is director of media and communications at Emir Research, a think tank focused on data-driven policy research, centred on principles of Engagement, Moderation, Innovation and Rigour.