In What Shape, Democracy?
(A version of this was published in theSun on 19th October 2012).
Over the past few weeks, I have had the privilege of travelling to places like Bukit Mertajam, Kempas, and Parit Yaani in Peninsular Malaysia on the FreedomFilmFest 2012 roadshow, where my documentary on the late Teoh Beng Hock, “The Rights of The Dead”, has been screened to groups of all races and ages. The documentary analysed the case, the impact of his death on his family, and the system of government that caused the incidents that unfolded, following his death in 2009.
The discussion that follows such screenings usually takes on the theme of reform, whether through internal or external structures. Indeed, in my various other speaking engagements at conferences, there seems to be a consistent thread that runs throughout. Simply, participants generally acknowledge that the system – whether economic, social, institutional, judicial, educational, religious or otherwise – can certainly be improved by many degrees.
The point of dispute between attendees at such public events is usually: what is the best modus operandi through which improvements can be made? On one end of the spectrum lie those more comfortable working within bureaucracy, who believe that change is more likely to occur from the inside out. After all, if you are not the one holding the reins of power, what kind of reform can you realistically seek to achieve? By having close proximity to key decision-makers and policy-makers, they believe they can be the voice of change in the places that matter.
On the other end is the view that the system is rotten to the core, and there is a lack of political will to truly transform things so fundamentally. They therefore submit that the only way is to democratically elect a new set of leaders in place, and that a new government will correct the wrongs of past undoing. In this view, working within the system can sometimes co-opt one’s previously idealist views, which may change as a result to suit the system.
Then there is the growing voice of neutrality, with those insufficiently convinced by either side of the political divide, and as such are unwilling to throw in their lot with one party or the other – or, that, because the system is rotten, either side will not govern well. This third middle-ground and independent group may consist of individuals who prefer to work within the means of civil society and NGOs to agitate for change from the outside in.
It is true that if it is the system that needs changing, one must caution whichever political party in the seat of power that it is incumbent upon them to change the system and its inherent built-in failures, into one that ensures institutional independence – or if not, risk sliding down the same slippery slope of power that corrupts absolutely.
A book I read recently shed some light on the subject, namely “The Audacity to Think: An Invitation to Rethink Politics”, by Steven Sim. Although the author is a young politician himself – a DAP member and counsellor for the Seberang Perai City Council – his words are worth considering.
He rightly cites the trend that today, neutrality is seen as “superior to partisanship, as if it is greater than taking sides”, but goes on to rebut this stance by saying all of us speak and act from our own biases, whether we are aware of it or not. This is because of the respective environments we grew up in, the manner in which we were socalised into the world. Each of us has our individual prejudices and worldviews to begin with; to perceive we are an empty slate devoid of values is therefore an unrealistic premise.
I am in agreement with the author that this leads to the gross lack of discussion of values and worldviews, which should ultimately drive the discourse on politics in our country if we are to move forward. Specifically, “we must demand debates of ideas and ideologies in our public arena, not merely endless discussions on personalities.” Today, a large percentage of the Malaysian population continues to vote according to either the ethnicity or personality of the given candidate in question.
If we are to focus the discussion on political reform on ideas and ideologies, then the ideal is to vote based on policy lines. If, for instance, you believed that ‘A’ and not ‘B’ is the solution to, say, fair economic growth and distribution in Malaysia, the most logical is to therefore vote for the candidate who equally subcribes to ‘A’.
This is why, in the lead-up to the 13th General Election (speculated to take place within the next four to five months, and must be called for by June 2013), it is imperative for voting Malaysians to educate themselves on the policy stands taken by both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat on a range of issues, including that on education, healthcare, fiscal policy, public transport, and economic matters. Finding out what each side stands for on a particular subject, and then making a decision based on this, is the best way to mature and shape our democracy.
As for those who continue to take a neutral position, consider this. In my documentary, one interviewee puts it succinctly, that the Executive arm of government is extremely strong in our system today, practically controlling the Judiciary. It is for this reason that steps must be urgently taken to strengthen the independence of institutions. In the Teoh Beng Hock case, the Attorney General ultimately made the decision not to prosecute any of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officers named as responsible for his interrogation (as cited in the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s report, 2011).
In the final analysis, the political side that agitates that changes are urgently needed to the system itself, toward greater institutional independence – which is the most needed today – is the one I would personally support.
