A refrain from voting effectively disenfranchises refraining voters from decision-making processes. When options sit along a political spectrum and the refrain causes candidate standing farthest from specific voters is elected into office, it is highly likely that issue raised by that specific voters will be ignored in favor of issues raised by the supporters of the candidate. As I have explained earlier, this makes voting imperative, especially when the participation rate is high and when the voting outcome affects the voters. Thus, Hobson has been taken out of the equation. While the importance of voting has been established, I have yet to answer the question of how does one vote under the current Malaysian circumstances. Sophie still stares at us.
To do so, we have to establish our goal, be it libertarian or some other thinkings. With two points identified, we then will be able to determine which path to follow.
To answer my dilemma — which many share, I am sure — we cannot solve it by working from the stage of reality to the stage of ideal. To convincingly answer it, we have to take our goals and work it backward.
The libertarian goal is the maximization of liberty and that is my goal. The typical caveat applies but this is not an entry about the definition of libertarianism and so, we shall leave it there and confidently move on.
Prior to the dissolution of the Parliament in February, we had an influential government with a shockingly strong mandate. Subsequent events in the past several years have proven that the mandate had enabled tyranny of the majority; the inferiority of majoritarian democracy to liberal democracy was proven albeit painfully. I have repeatedly emphasized the superior of a liberal democracy to “democracy, Malaysian-style” and so, I will say no more of majoritarian and liberal democracy.
I repeat, an extremely strong Malaysian government resulted in the minimization of liberty. So strong it was that liberties supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution have been grossly violated from time to time. Worse, the Constitution and policies could be amended according to Prime Minister’s mood of the day. A case in point: the extension of the retirement age of the EC chairman.
Given the status quo and the ultimate goal of libertarianism — or at least, the prevention of tyranny of the majority — the immediate goal for the 2008 Malaysian general election is clear. The immediate goal is the reduction of the power of the state. With history suggesting that BN will form the majority in the Dewan Rakyat by default, this translates into voting against BN.
That however does not quite cut it for me. I am facing a choice between having to choose UMNO, which is part of BN, and PAS. Does voting for PAS enhance my liberty?
Ideologically, it does not but pragmatically, it does enhance liberty due to rationale against tyranny of the majority.
At a stall last week, I had a supper with a several individuals and one of them was the respected lawyer Haris Ibrahim. He said, “this is not the time for a debate” in response to question by a Christian whom asked why should she vote for PAS?
Mr. Haris further stated, “do the arithmetic. PAS will not be able to form the government.” PAS is contesting only about 60 seats and it is only expected to win at least 40 seats. With 111 seats level marks the 50% threshold — if PAS is interested in forming a government; assuming BN would sit in the opposition — PAS will have to collaborate with other political parties which do not share the goals of PAS, including DAP.
Compare this to the current unmitigated Islamization process done by BN, led by UMNO.
Unlike UMNO, PAS limited influence can be controlled. UMNO’s influence on the other hand is too enormous to manage. Just observe BN; despite the presence of MCA and MIC as well as other junior partners, UMNO is free to dictate the direction of the coalition while dissent is swiftly punished. Fascism is the word of the day. If I may say so, intolerance for dissent is the reason why parties instead of individuals dominate Malaysian politics. Until these parties are humbled, individual-based politics will not thrive.
The only way I could think of to starve off creeping Islamization is the introduction of political competition in the legislature. This leads to the same conclusion yet again: the reduction of the power of the state.
Finally, when PAS knows that it is getting protest votes from those that do not agree to its Islamism and if PAS is interested in keeping and building its influence, it will have to continue to cater to these voters, which does not the traditional voters of PAS. Eventually, PAS agenda will be toned down.
Thus, the Sophie’s choice is solved without appealing to the rationale of the lesser of the two evils. What I have done is realizing an aspiration to achieve the noblest of all goals with clear conscience. I refuse to dance with Sophie.
18 replies on “[1568] Of refusing to dance with Sophie”
You gave your vote to PAS, so PAS the party you support lah, sama ada secara langsung or not, ataupun nak dipertikaikan ni?
Bak perpatah Inggeris (yang menjadi bahasa pengantar blog ini): you ungkit, ‘the ends justify the means’?
Like I said before, my English not so good, but if you will allow me dwi-bahasa, I will cuba try to understand where you are coming from.
Maklumlah even cakap Melayu pun adakala I silap perbendaharaan kata juga. Komen semalam dibuat pd jam 11.52 (waktu tu dah mengantuk), so skrg revise sikit boleh? Yang rally PAS membantah ‘Fitna’ bukan sekadar ‘meminta’ kan?; depa sebenarnya ‘menuntut’ supaya Wilders dikembalikan ke Rahmatullah bukan ikut timetable Allah s.a.w tapi supaya jadual waktu dipercepatkan … bagi dia tiket ekspres, dalam kata lain.
You write: the ultimate goal of libertarianism is the maximization of liberty — or at least, the prevention of tyranny of the majority. “Eventually, PAS agenda will be toned down†you say?
So kita berbalik kepada perbincangan hal-ehwal semasa, okay? On the one hand, you ajukan bahawasa PAS akan akur (ataupun respek sikit) kehendak kalian yang bagi dia orang ‘protes votes’. On the other hand, kita berdepan dgn Islamization jenama Hadhari yang mensyorkan semua – rata x2 yah? – ditangkap & dihukum khalwat.
So Umno + PAS = check & balance ke? Or ‘squared’ (kuasa dua)? perihal “tyranny of the majority� Mana you punya ‘liberty/libertarian’ whatever …
Correction: I voted for a smaller government. Voting for PAS is only a mean.
Parti yang mu undi telah menganjurkan perhimpunan untuk meminta agar hukuman mati dijatuhkan atas Geert Wilders, kononnya. Boleh kongsi pendapat sikit?
[…] My election-Saturday-day started early. I fulfilled my civic duty with an ease that would have surprised me months ago: I voted for PAS without any hesitation despite my misgivings of the party. With help from friends, I managed to rationalize such move by appealing to my ideal rather than crude pragmatism. […]
[…] voted for PAS not because I agree with the its policies rather, I voted for it because I wanted to reduce the power of the state. For many others from what I heard, they voted before they are unhappy with UMNO; their votes are […]
[ADMIN: suspected impersonator GaryWBush, Musa, Gul etc. Kindly ignore: see http://maddruid.com/?p=1078 ]
Hafiz is an Islamic fascist which is why he thinks PAS is libertarian and its elected MP will maximize liberty for the rakyat.
Pragmatically speaking a vote for UMNO in the Titiwangsa kawasan maximises liberty. We need to say no to both PAS and PKR, which are part of the Islamic fascist Barisan Alternatif, but yes to DAP if we want a strong opposition. With 54 seats in parliament, DAP can balance the Barisan Nasional via a Chinese-led opposition to a Muslim-led government.
This is how I voted in my parliamentary constituency, Titiwangsa. I voted for BARISAN NASIONAL (UMNO) rather than the Muslim candidate as I think Malays are better than Muslim fascists.
[…] I have and I voted for a smaller government. […]
Google Sophie’s Choice.
Pardon me for asking, but who exactly is that Sophie?
Thanks for that insight, Hafiz.
It would appear then that the presumptive notion is to just reduce BN’s majority and not oust them from running the country.
A people’s check and balance and a status quo on not ever amending the Federal Constitution ever again, not until the BN behaves according to the whims of the presumed majority.
Unless the majority of the electorate returns them with two-thirds majority and therefore one can try again and again.
That’s democracy.
As for PAS, their reason for existence is to have an Islamic state – which is why they broke away from UMNO in 1951 – and no other reason.
I don’t mind that if they follow the zakat system and just tax me 2.5 percent of my income. But I haven’t seen them mention that or even think of introducing such a measure.
As for the petrolhead populism espoused by the few political parties, I guess its empty promises to get votes because they know they cannot form the government of the day.
Too bad. We hate empty promises, which brings us to whom we endorse. Well, we endorse ourselves in our own wonderland – as you eloquently put it.
We did say we were against any pacts and the more candidates and parties, the merrier.
Have a green and great day!
Indeed this ties up loose ends.
I still disagree that choosing not to vote makes one “irrelevant” to the decision-making process – as I earlier mentioned decisions can be made outside the purview of the state, as in private education, or the provision by developers or NGOs of houses. Of course constitutional amendments &c. necessarily are in the purview of the state. But “irrelevant” is an exaggeration.
In some constituencies, the BN candidate may be resistant to central machinery and represent constituents and their liberty more effectively. Perhaps not many specific examples – Shahrir Abdul Samad? – but it is important to remember that we technically vote for individuals.
Then there is the final issue of fostering the abandonment of ideology and principle in voting, leading to the loss of choice as all major parties move to the centre.. leading to greater voter apathy a la UK.
But let’s save that debate for another day – go and help your friends for now!
I don’t agree to greater subsidy as well as many other populist economic policies. In an election however, fuel subsidy is not the only factor needs to be considered. There are various factors involved. From equality of rights to corruption to liberty to balance of power. One has to assign weight on all those issues and decide afterwards.
If I wanted to strictly adhere to my preference, then I should run instead.
As for PAS, I’m only saying that voting for PAS is a strategic matter in achieving a goal, i.e. reducing the power of the state. It is a mean to an immediate end. Remember also, PAS has been trying to move to the center. It has moderated its Islamism tendency to attract those outside of its base.
But enough about me. What about you guys? Are you guys endorsing any party or would just rather live in wonderland and endorse yourself?
Well argued points but voting but its hoping for too much to think that PAS knows that the votes garnered in its favour is in protest against BN and not actual support for them.
After all, PAS is the same party that tacitly and implicitly approves of UMNO and by extension BN’s creeping Islamisation policies.
Have you ever heard of a whimper of protest when bodies are snatched in the name of Islam or the word Allah banned for use among non-Muslims? True, they would have handled it differently but the philosophy and policy would remain the same.
Fact is, UMNO is in its own way doing the bidding of PAS in its efforts to be more Islamic than PAS.
Be that as it may, what interests me more is how can those who apparently care for the environment support any party with a manifesto that promises cheaper fuel prices and toll charges?
Wouldn’t that lead to more cars on the road, and more emissions? Tell me, quando quando quando!
I agree… as much as I totally (with a capital T-O-T-A-L-L-Y) disagree with some of PAS’s overall objectives (particularly the Islamization parts), we need to cross this very important bridge first – that of diminishing BN’s influence.
They (PAS) don’t have the critical mass to form a government on their own and that’s the message those who’ve had it up to their necks with BN need to realize.
Similarly, certain gung-ho PAS supporters need to get it into their thickish heads that the important thing right now is to get a stronger Opposition – vowing to spoil their vote (I don’t need to mention who) is simply juvenile and plain stupid.
Let’s focus on the right objective at the right time…
Simple logic, but still many people refuse to think about it.
And Thomas Jefferson famous quote “Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security, deserve neither security nor liberty” are similar logic. Still many people blind for little security that are in fact, unsustainable security.