THE shock of a very right-wing Donald Trump winning a second term as President of the United States – that so-called “shining example of democracy” – made me think about what is happening in Malaysia.
I remember hearing “Suara rakyat suara keramat” (the voice of the people is a sacred voice) during those days of the call for “Reformasi” led by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim following the Permatang Pauh Declaration in 1998.
I was then, and have been since, a strong proponent of democracy. But today, I have actually begun doubting whether we, the rakyat, actually have a “suara keramat” or a “suara keparat” (voice of a scoundrel).
The idea of democracy is said to have begun with the ancient Greeks; the word itself is formed from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (power or rule), meaning “rule by the people”. All free men participated in decision-making by voting for their representatives in assemblies – one man, one vote.
Free men meant those who owned property, were not slaves, and who were willing to defend their country to the death. These were obviously educated men who knew what was at stake in their small world. And, no, women were not allowed to vote.
So some 2,500 years on, we have the same idea of one person, one vote (women were finally allowed to vote just a little over a century ago). But the people who can now vote are quite different from that small group of educated men.
Now voters may not be educated, may not own property, and may be too old to defend the country. Also different from the Greeks, we now have social media, through which one vote may influence thousands of other votes. I’m not so sure it is still one vote, one person anymore.
Also different from the Greeks, we, the people, experience an industrial style of education without any philosophical, creative or even critical thinking. In this, we are very different from the ancient Greeks, who were known to highly value philosophy.
There are three things I worry about in today’s democracy – what I consider the “sins” of a democracy.
Firstly, as I have written before, the voters have no grounding in politics and how a country works. Thus, left floundering, many give in to instilled fears and choose along racial, religious and populist lines when it comes time to vote. If one is a Malay, one votes for a Malay or Malay-dominated party; the same thing happens with other races. This I call “the sin of tribal preference”.
The second sin I see emerging from civil society: The idea of civil society is to be the conscience of the nation by airing views and protests – in a calm and dignified manner, mind you. What I can see now is some well-known civil society organisations (CSOs) demanding many reforms in a reckless, demeaning and unfair manner.What do I mean by unfair? Well, people who criticise the government for not carrying out reforms must understand that the government cannot act in a vacuum. CSOs must understand the context of the culture of politics and entrenched administrators as well as the views of a majority race. Politics is about managing all these views; CSOs have the luxury of only managing their own conscience and self-righteousness.
Secondly, I am disgusted to see civil society using derogatory means to make their points by grandstanding on issues while shouting or writing as if ministers do not have any feelings. I have seen expressions like “the minister doesn’t seem to have a clue”, “the PM does not seem to care at all about other rakyat of different faiths” or “the PM deserves a D grade”.
These criticisms fail in three important ways: Firstly, the criticism is usually unclear in scope and expectation. Change what? How to change and which part exactly?
Secondly, the criticism does not take into account administrative procedures and – most importantly – party politics. Party politics among different coalition partners is a real thing and cannot be ignored, and there is, I’m sure some sort of private quid pro quo dealing going on. That is unavoidable. I am not justifying it but it is silly and naive not to understand that it exists and has to be dealt with.
Finally, I feel that “grading” a prime minister is rather childish and clearly doesn’t work because grading requires the grader to have been in the position of who the grade is for; grading requires moderation from different sources. Since just one CSO takes on this task, what practical use is it?
Also, I personally feel it’s rather rude. The Islamic way of advising leaders, and I believe that it is also the Asian way, is to speak privately, with carefully selected words – with hemah, or wisdom and tact. Not having their grouses splattered all over the media.
The final democratic sin is one that we, the rakyat, commit when we refuse to check the facts of an issue and simply make them go viral on Internet platforms, complete with all the lies, propaganda and misinformation. When the facts of the matter are established, the damage is already done.
If this country fails and falls into poverty and chaos, I would no longer blame the politicians or the administrators but point the finger back at ourselves, the rakyat, for refusing to learn to change, for allowing knee-jerk reactions and bad manners to threaten unity, and for making untruths go viral willingly and joyfully. We would have only ourselves to blame.
Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is Professor of Architecture at the Tan Sri Omar Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Studies at UCSI University. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.
