In this new book, Suflan Shamsuddin asserts that Malaysia is ill, and that unless her citizens can agree on her ailment, she cannot be cured. To agree on a diagnosis, we need a common understanding as to how all her people fit into her social fabric and how they relate to one another. In the book’s early chapters, Suflan ignores the proclaimed taboos around discussing the social contract’s more controversial elements in order to distill a common view that all Malaysians can share. He then uses this viewpoint to diagnose the country’s political funk, and to propose a new democratic landscape with which to “reset” the country’s political bearings.
Suflan believes that most Malaysians still vote for the political choice that best serves their narrow communal interests. They can do so by voting for either an ‘inclusive’ choice or a ‘non-inclusive’ choice. An inclusive choice, would either be for a) a party that has the support from Malaysians of all communities because of the appeal of its power-sharing manifesto; or b) a coalition of ‘special-interest’ parties, that similarly enjoys broad support from all communities because their manifestos are complementary and there is a reasonably workable power-sharing formula by which the interest of all communities are protected. A non-inclusive choice would be for a party that appeals to and draws support from one community or segment of society to the exclusion of another, or a coalition involving such parties. A party would still be non-inclusive even if its manifesto seeks to treat all Malaysians equally, for so long as one community rejects it as being representative of its interests. Every vote for a non-inclusive choice, even if for the sake of supporting a noble egalitarian cause or strengthening checks and balances against the government, increases the risk of deep communal divisions and major societal instability.
It is the management of this risk by those in power, through the use of executive prerogatives and patronage, which Suflan says is at the heart of the country’s political quagmire. The problem is exacerbated by a conflict of interest between a) the government’s perceived legitimacy to manage such risk for all Malaysians; b) its desire to have its policies implemented; and c) its desire to win the war for ideological domination. The public becomes deeply suspicious of how this conflict is managed particularly when there is doubt as to BN/UMNO/government’s own commitment to inclusivity.
The tools that it deploys include but are not limited to the use of draconian laws like the Internal Security Act, the control over the media, the influence over the judiciary and other governance bodies, the placement of kin and allies into positions of influence, and the deployment of institutionalized chauvinism, where necessary. Malaysia has enjoyed peace, stability and prosperity, which suggests to the supporters of the establishment, that these tools are effective “necessary evils”.
But their prolonged usage over decades has stirred and incited great resentment and confusion. The political tsunami of March 2008 General Elections (in which the ruling coalition suffered massive losses to a strange political coalition involving non-inclusive political bedfellows whose ideologies are at odds with each other) suggests a desire by the electorate to reject the ways of the past without a consensus on building the future, and simply affirms the prognosis as to just how ill this country is. Suflan considers that at the crux of the whole Dr.M v Anwar v Najib v Pak Lah “soap opera” is this phenomenon and its effects. In fact, most major political tribulations that the country has endured over the last 30 years bear the same trademark. This “merry go round” is sure to go on ad infinitum.
But it’s not just this prolonged debacle and political uncertainty that is the extracted price for Malaysia. Suflan describes a number of key nation-building principles that will determine the country’s success and failure. They include: democracy and the rule of law; the creation of an enlightened resilient Malay society which makes its own choice to be free from special privileges to compete and survive; an aligned understanding of the role and contribution of each Malaysian, regardless of background; and a commonly held set of values and ideals that all Malaysians can adopt. The continued use of prerogatives and patronage will hinder the delivery of these and other nation-building imperatives, without which the country will eventually slide precariously into peril, no matter who or which party is at the helm.
If Malaysia is to get to the root of this problem, it must urgently address the risk of communal divisions and societal volatility associated with non-inclusive electoral choices. Suflan asserts that the answer lies in the country’s willingness to reset its political and democratic framework in such as way that precludes non-inclusive choices in favour of only truly broadly representative and inclusive political party systems that appeal to all Malaysians. To him, it is a solution that comes with a price for all involved, but its ultimate reward makes the sacrifice worthwhile. In doing so, the root cause would be addressed and the reliance on prerogatives and patronage to maintain the equilibrium would no longer be necessary nor justified. It is at this point that Suflan believes democratic reforms can follow to liberate the nation to fulfill her true potential. Without the reset, it will only be a matter of time before the country withers away into oblivion.
The real challenge to the model that you outlined is whether or not the price of only allowing inclusive models of political parties in the electoral process is acceptable to malaysians. I think there will be a lot of people who might moan and groan about the current state of affairs, but would not be willing to forego their right to vote for a party that only appeals to say, the Malays (to the exclusion of the non-Malays, like PAS), or say to the non-Malays (to the exclusion of the Malays) like DAP. How will you be able to convince them that this is a price worth paying?
Let me explain the underlying logic.
On one hand we, as Malaysians, want the right to make “non-inclusive” choices because we think that it is our democratic right. But on the other hand, we recognise that if most Malaysians voted non-inclusively, ie. Malays voted PAS (to reject secularism and any power sharing formula with non-Malays), and all Chinese and Indians voted DAP (to reject Islamic or Malay nationialism, or power sharing in favour of the Malays), our society could become highly unstable. Such instability is not a function of whether or not the ideologies of such parties are noble or egalitarian, but the extent to which their voters are motivated by selfish and parochial interests.
It is this potential volatility that government supporters will say justifies the use of authoritative and non-democratic tools like the ISA, the UUCA, the interference of the judiciary, etc. etc. to maintain the equilibrium. But in reality the justification also provides the ideal basis upon which the powers that be utilise such tools to maintain its ideological dominance and protect the status quo. In a scenario where the government’s own inclusiveness might be in question, the conflict and volatility can never be properly managed. And Malaysian society has no chance to progress nor mature.
It is naiive to think that the ISA, UUCA, and matters to do with judicial independence will ever be fully addressed satisfactorily, no matter who is at the helm of government, unless this conflict, or the elements that give rise to such conflict, can be removed at source.
Losing the right to make a non-inclusive choice will indeed be something extremely difficult for Malaysians to give up, and I accept that such a preclusion is in a way “undemocratic”. I realise that. Many Malays would want to continue to vote for PAS or UMNO (even if UMNO was not part of BN and became just as non-inclusive as PAS). And many of my Chinese friends want to vote DAP even though they know that hardly any Malays support that party.
It’s the security blanket that we never want to sleep without. But if we want this country to move forward, and get out of its political funk, then we have to accept that we share this country with Malaysians of different religious and ethnic backgrounds, and that we must accept their right to be in this country, and our collective obligation to work together to find a way forward. And we must remove the “clear and present danger” that justifies the use of draconian laws and prerogatives and patronage. We can only do this if we accept that we must vote in an inclusive way. Losing the right to vote non-inclusively is a relatively small price to pay, given what is at stake for the country.
Once we have truly inclusive politics, then we will have the basis upon which to implement meaningful democratice reforms that we so yearn for. We would have opened the window of opportunity for us to truly become Bangsa Malaysia.
What you are proposing will require, I would have thought, constitutional amendments to be passed. How on earth could 75 percent of MPs agree to pass an amendment that would reset the political framework in the way that you suggest? Don’t you think that that is too much of a tall order?
Let me first say that this is not a journey that we can make overnight. It requires a huge amount of effort, and it may be a cause that needs to be fought over many years if not decades. But we must make a start somewhere, because this is the only way for Malaysia to succeed.
Although 75 per of 222 MPs looks like a large number to secure, it is encouraging to note that most MPs and the parties that they represent would claim that they embrace “inclusive” politics.
Barisan Nasional, as a coalition, preaches and practices inclusive politics. And so does PKR. DAP might not be inclusive, because although it claims that it has egalitarian ideals, it does not command any support from the Malay community at all. But, at the very least, given its desire to create a “Malaysian Malaysia”, it would be easy to explain to DAP the value of inclusive politics. The only party that might outrightly claim that they do not embrace inclusive politics is PAS (given that many desire the creation of an Islamic government, which would mean different rules applying to different communities (therefore not inclusive)). But PAS represents a relatively small number of MPs. And arguably, there might be many PAS MPs who might be willing to embrace inclusive politics, if there are moral upsides to be gained (greater transparency, efficiency and honesty)!
And therefore a non-partisan campaign along such lines is not an impossibility if we really put our minds to it. Of course, how this is done, and what it is that will convince each of the parties as to why they should support such a proposal, requires a lot of thought. Some of the arguments are already in the book. In due course, I will try to propose some of the addisional arguments that should be made to each Party why they should support it.
If, at the end of the day, Malaysians can see the value of this proposal, and they rally behind it to influence the various political parties that are represented in parliament, across the political divide, through all available channels and means, then nothing is impossible…
Look forward to your write-up on the additional arguments that need to be made to these parties, Suflan..
Barisan Nasional inclusive? Seems like an oxymoron!!
On one hand, darkknight6, your comment is flippant..! And yet on the other hand, you make a very important point.. albeit indirectly..
And that is, that even though Barisan Nasional appears to be inclusive, there may be many of its members and supporters who would rather that non-inclusive politics continue to be practiced by its political competitors. After all, it is their guaranteed meal ticket to remain relevant.. Why would they want to have an inclusive party as its sole competitor? [As explained in the book, that a coalition like Pakatan Rakyat is not inclusive. Also, a three corner fight between two inclusive parties like UMNO (through BN) and PKR could benefit a non-inclusive party like PAS.]
Many in BN would like to maintain the status quo, because it appears to give them a monopoly on claiming inclusivity, but it also allows them to utilise prerogatives and patronage to manage the disequilibrium caused by non-inclusive parties, to achieve what they want, including ideological dominance. It is, in a way, the best of both worlds!
But in reality, of course, this is very short-term view.. A monopoly is bad for BN and UMNO.. because it will cause the party and coalition to waste away.. Look at the recent comments of senior leaders in UMNO about money politics, and you can see that if there is no healthy and meaningful competition for UMNO, such ills can never be gotten rid off.. UMNO and BN will continue to rot..It needs competition to be reinvigorated… real inclusive competition (without any non inclusive interference)