Category: Politics & government
An interesting parallel appears here between economics and exit, on the one hand, and politics and voice, on the other. Just as in economics it had long been thought that the more elastic demand is (that is, the more rapidly exit ensues whenever deterioration occurs) the better for the functioning of the economic system, so it has long been an article of faith of political theory that the proper functioning of democracy requires a maximally alert, active, and vocal public. In the United States, this belief was shaken by empirical studies of voting and political behavior which demonstrated the existence of considerable political apathy on the part of large sections of the public, for long periods of time. Since the democratic system appeared to survive this apathy rather well, it became clear that the relations between political activism of the citizens and stable democracy are considerably more complex than had once been thought. As in the case of exit, a mixture of alert and inert citizens, or even an alternation of involvement and withdrawal, may actually serve democracy better than either total, permanent activism or total apathy. One reason, stressed by Robert Dahl, is that the ordinary failure, on the part of most citizens, to use their potential political resources to the full makes it possible for them to react with unexpected vigor—by using normally unused reserves of political power and influence—whenever their vital interests are directly threatened… [Albert Hirschman. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Chapter 3. 1970]
Being away from Malaysia, I am less attuned to its politics than I used to be. It is hard for me to follow closely all political development there, being busy with life here in Australia. Nevertheless, several events stick out and one of them is the party election of Parti Keadilan Rakyat. That election is of national interest.
While the election is an exercise that enhances democratic practice in Malaysia — not just by holding an election but by having a direct election, unlike UMNO which adopts a system similar to electoral college — the campaigns embarked by individuals and groups involved in the election has been disappointing.
The kind of campaigning I am referring to is the one, which goes like this: newcomers should not run for office. Newcomers’ experience, loyalty, or both are being questioned. Many in PKR who claim to be democrats siding with Azmin Ali are making this argument. I however believe that this kind of argument is not one that a democrat should not make too often.
This is not to dismiss concerns about loyalty and motives of newcomers, especially after a spate of defections had hit PKR. It is a problem and the party, which was a mere collection of ragtags (which, it is probably still is) needs to address it.
My fear is that if this argument is the thrust of the campaign, which seems to me it is, will create an undemocratic culture in PKR that favors the incumbents. In fact, arguments regarding inexperience can be turned against PKR as a whole. For instance, why trust PKR when there is UMNO or Barisan Nasional?
Distrust of newcomers is also problematic to PKR’s national aspiration. You cannot win national election if you distrust newcomers.
I want to see a competitive election at national level. In fact, I want new people in power. I do not think the campaign style undertaken by Azmin Ali’s camp is conducive to that realization of change.
A friend shared his thought about the upcoming Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, which poises to be a disaster, the other day. The Economist with its typical humor wrote:
INDIAN officials insist that the Commonwealth games, to which Delhi plays host in October, should not be compared to Beijing’s Olympic games. They are right. The 2008 Olympics were a symbol of China’s emergence as a great power. The Commonwealth ones seem to be heading for disaster. [Running into the sand. The Economist. August 12 2010]
Allegations of corruption revolving around the Games are everywhere and it is likely that these allegations are true. On top of that, New Delhi is seriously behind schedule, despite the Games being just less than two weeks away.
The friend, in addition to saying that nobody cares about the Games, states that the disaster is good for India. For the longest time, India has its own way of doing things. The way the Games is developing even before it begins, it is likely to be a very public embarrassment for the country. That embarrassment might prove to be big enough for India to buck up and encourage the country to do something about the widespread corruption, and the Indian (government’s) way in general that appears to be chaotic.
The last general election does change a lot of things. From an unrecognized date, September 16 has been a public holiday for the past 2 years.
While I am happy that the Day is finally being recognized, I find that the idea of Malaysia Day in the mind of the federal government and what I call Malaysia Day-neophytes really revolves around the celebration of Sabah and Sarawak. I despise that.
This is moving from a wrong to another wrong.
Malaysia Day is not the celebration of the independence of Sabah or Sarawak. History does not say so. Sabah gained independence from the British on August 31 1963. Sarawak gained its independence from the British on July 22 1963. It was Malaysia that was formed on September 16 in that same year.
And it is not a celebration of Sabah or Sarawak specifically either. The federation that we have now was formed not just by Sabah and Sarawak. Have we forgotten that?
Malaysia Day should be about remembering the formation of a federation called Malaysia and those who supported us. Malaysia Day should be about Malaysia, not about Sabah or Sarawak specifically.