Tag: liberalism

Categories
Liberty

[1329] Of bicameralism to moderate crass democracy

Democracy in its purest form is a mere majoritarianism and a society built on mere majoritarianism is a society built on pure populism. There is nothing in populism and by extension democracy that guarantees liberty. Yet, democracy has proven to be an effective decision making tool, allowing differences to be ironed out peacefully instead of by force. For this reason, libertarians — for the sake of simplicity, liberals — prefer moderated democracy and a tool that offers that possibility is a liberal constitution which guarantees negative rights. The merging of the two tools results in a system known as liberal democracy. Unfortunately, any constitution may fail under heavy populist pressure for a constitution itself is not free from revision. Here is where another moderator of populist sentiment comes into play: bicameralism.

How is that so?

Bicameralism is simply a system of two legislatives chambers divided into the lower house and the upper house.

In the name of democracy, the lower house is sensitive to popular opinion. Representatives elected into the house have only one interest at heart and that is the people. Whenever popular opinion sways for better or for worse, so does the opinion of the lower house.

There are moments when public opinion exhibits excessive instant gratification quality with little regard to future outcomes. More often than not, such moments are filled with emotion or are made possible with limited information. It goes without saying that opinion or decisions made with incomplete information may not produce the best of all possible outcomes. Worse, in times of great distrust, some groups may try to oppress the weaker communities and the weakest of all communities are the individuals. Those are the moments when democracy looms menacingly, when tyranny of the majority is most relevant. This is why liberals are distrustful of democracy.

If placed on a two-axes graph which the horizon axis represents time and the vertical axis represents public opinion through some numeral values, short term-based public opinion sways wildly as time progresses. Extreme values toward one side or another — for instance, authoritarianism or anarchy — that prevail for only a short time frame may have destabilizing effect and undo years of progress. When emotion subsides and rationality dominates, the mob, and the society in general, may regret its actions as complete information becomes available only later.

The upper house functions to smooth out the crests and troughs of public opinion. In order words, it is less sensitive to crass democracy with farther perspective in temporal horizon. For liberals, the upper house is more interested in protecting the liberal constitution rather than kowtowing to the mob.

This however does not mean the members of the house — senators — are not elected into their seats. Democracy still plays a role in the makeup of the house but its effect is far moderated than that in the lower house. This alignment of interest is achieved by granting senators longer term compared to the members of the lower house. Through this itself, the atmosphere in the upper house is calmer, where rationality overcomes emotion, emotion that appeals to the mob. In this environment, discussion could be carried in a more productive manner.

The insensitivity to public opinion however creates another problem. Due to the longer term, upper house members — or senators — do have considerable power compared to their counterparts. This is where one must tread carefully since senators are less responsive to the people. Conferring the senators with too much power may create powerful oligarchy relatively unanswerable to the people. To reasonably eliminate such possibility, a upper house of a liberal democracy practicing bicameralism has only the power accept or reject law proposed by the lower house. The upper house itself cannot introduce or amend any law. It is not an agenda setter.

It has to be noted bicameralism itself suffers from status quo bias. Whatever the status quo, bicameralism in the form expressed here is still a moderator of democracy. Like democracy, it is a tool and it is not an end. For liberals, the only end is liberty.

Categories
Liberty

[1321] Of your mandate is derived from the people, sir

It is amusing how Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday said that he had granted freedom to Malaysians. In the Malay daily Utusan Mingguan today:

“Saya bagi banyak kebebasan dan semua orang boleh bersuara, macam-macam boleh cakap tetapi pandai-pandailah uruskan kebebasan, kalau tidak dihargai semuanya (kebebasan) akan hilang” [Amaran PM — Keamanan boleh tergugat jika kebebasan bersuara disalah guna. Utusan Mingguan. August 4 2007]

That could be roughly translated into:

“I’ve granted freedom and all may speak freely but do practice freedom responsibly or else, it will disappear”

The Prime Minister forgets that he derives his mandate from the people; we, the people do not derive our rights from the PM.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1277] Of defining a liberal Malaysian nation

A nation is not a state but a nation-state is both a nation and a state. There are stark differences between nation and state but not many differentiate the two concepts. Worse, at times, the two terms are used interchangeably. Comprehension of the two terms is required if one is to grasp the impetus for Bangsa Malaysia — transliterally, the Malaysian race; more accurately, the Malaysian nation — and further, why the traditional nation-state concept based on ethnicity and religion is outdated.

A nation is a community whereas its members, individuals, share a common identity. That identity in turn is derived from history, through similarities in languages, ethnicities, religions, or in the broadest sense, culture. It is through this shared identity which nationalism arises. A nation is therefore fluid with no concrete border by itself. As the community expands or shrinks, so does the nation.

A state is more solid in nature and changes to its borders usually involve macro-events such as wars or referendum which individuals agree to come together or part ways. It is an institution that governs a set of territories with the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within that territories.

At some points in history, nations started to demand their own states. The demands later introduced the concept known as nation-state. In such concept, a nation has sovereignty over a set of territories. This has been the basis for the foundation of a number of countries in the world including but not limited to, at its inception at least, many European states, the Arab states, China and Japan.

For a multicultural state, the concept of nation-state is hard to apply; the central question is what is the shared identity?

This could be a very divisive question. Needless to say, members of a multicultural society come from diverse background and more likely than not, identities are not shared. Differences may be more pronounced than any commonality exists among communities that a nation-state depends on.

When there is little or no shared identity and with greater differences instead, there may be an urge to create an artificial nation to justify a nation-state. For those that favor a multicultural state, this is a natural reaction to such absence because the lack of common identity coupled with the ideals of nationalism of various groups tend to divide a state into smaller states, sometimes violently.

Nationalism calls for one land for one nation. Balkanization may be the manifestation of nationalism within a multicultural state in its worst form. Events of the 1990s and early 2000s continuously broke up the multicultural, or within our context, multinational, Yugoslavia. Indeed, Yugoslavia is not a special case. The Astro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were other victims of nationalism. If I may say so, the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire, the former political center of the Muslim world is the reason why Islam is hostile to a certain kind of nationalism, fuming at how religious nationalism was undone by ethnic nationalism.

Malaysia is another example of a multinational state. Nationalism may have done to Malaysia to what it had done to the Ottoman Empire though never closer to the latter’s magnitude. At its inception in 1963, 14 states came together to form a new federation. The question of shared identity, of nationalism, quickly forced the expulsion of one of its states, Singapore, out of the federation short of two years later. Four years after that, the worst racial riot — May 13 incident — in Malaysian history erupted. The riot could have further broken up the new federation. Wary of repeating the same incident, the state, the federation, requires a common identity to create a sense of oneness. With absence of a shared identity, it becomes necessary to create a common identity. It becomes absolutely necessary to synthesize existing nations into a one or altogether create a new nation.

Indonesia in the past created a common identity which was imposed from the top to the bottom. To a lesser degree, Malaysia is pursuing similar path. This is apparent through the National Language Act of 1967, the National Culture Policy of 1970s and more nakedly, the introduction of Bangsa Malaysia during the Mahathir administration.

Despite years of cliche, Bangsa Malaysia has not been properly defined and its definition differs across individuals and groups. At the moment, the result of Bangsa Malaysia is mixed, probably because it is a work in progress but one thing is clear — Rome was not built in a day.

In a new world where free flow of capital and labor is becoming common and necessary, a nation will eventually come into frequent contact with other nations. These interactions will inevitably change the composition of the nation as well as the society. The more liberal a society is, the faster a state turns into a multicultural society from a monocultural one as liberty attracts; from uninational, it becomes multinational. These interactions do offer unprecedented challenges toward effort of building a nation-state and society becomes more diverse.

A common identity is a crux of a nation-state. The identity more often than not demands assimilation instead of co-existence and that tends to create a tension among groups that feel the chosen common identity is sidelining theirs. Assimilation is an inescapable issue from the mainstream consciousness if there are large minorities within a multicultural state. In Malaysia, the debate on language and vernacular education signify this tension.

The forces of globalization are rocking the ground which nation-states sit on. The Netherlands for instance is fast becoming a multinational state where the meaning of the word Dutch, in term of citizenship, encompasses emigrants from all over the world. An Algerian could be a Frenchman while a Turk could well be a German. The line between member of nation and citizenship of state has been blurred that some often do away with the distinction altogether. Perhaps, this is a new nation of nations but it could not have been possible without the tolerance required for co-existence and not forced assimilation. In other word, a liberal nation. Lately however, a surge of nationalism and xenophobia are undermining the creation of a liberal nation.

For Malaysia, the Malaysian nation concept is an effort by force towards a new nation; an artificial shared identity. For it to succeed, it cannot be a nation based on ethnicity or religion. Dependence on such nationalism is detrimental to the state where it encourages development of very different nations which in the end, only balkanization is the logical solution. For the Malaysian nation to stand the test of time, it has to be a nation based on an universal idea, a philosophy — liberalism — where differences are tolerated or even cherished.

With a liberal nation, a liberal Malaysia practicing liberal democracy, one does not need to artificially create a shared identity. All one has to do is observe the non-aggression axiom — every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man. Through interactions in liberal settings, a shared identity will be grown organically, spontaneously.

All one needs to do is to respect the smallest unit of the society or nation — the individuals. A nation, after all, cannot exist without individuals. If the sovereignty of the individuals is disrespected, individuals would come together to form groups to demand sovereignty for nation-state for each group, breaking apart a multicultural state.

Categories
Activism Liberty Society

[1256] Of Lina Joy case is more than a mere procedural matter

Is the Lina Joy case is a procedural matter?

There are those that insist it is but I strongly beg to differ. Saying the case is procedural in nature downplays an issue that receives great attention from many sides that have stake in the ruling of the case. On the surface, I would agree that the case is about procedural in nature. If one looks at the issue beyond skin deep however, this is about a conflict of rights.

I was surprised to read procedure being forwarded as the cause of this confrontation. The procedure-based argument understates the issue so much that I feel there is a gross misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Or maybe, it is an act of downplaying an explosive and divisive issue. I could not care less if it were specifically, exclusively about procedure but I care because it is not. If this case were about procedure, what a pitiful society we all live in, arguing on matter of little significance. In my humble opinion, our society deserves a little bit of respect as far as this case is concerned.

The truth is, there are two groups that matter in this case. One emphasizes on individual rights and another emphasizes on community rights. From a neutral point of view, the overlapping area of the rights is the crux of this whole debate.

The fraction that stresses on individual rights is without doubt the liberals. The liberalism, at least classical liberalism, places the sovereignty of the individual on the individual. Individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person and properties as long as he respects others’ person and properties.

The other side however demands the sovereignty of an individual be transferred to the society. In other word, sovereignty of the individuals is the pregorative of the society. The religious conservatives in particular, from my observation, insist that a higher being or god rules sovereign over individuals. The community then acts on behalf of that god and takes over the sovereignty on the individual on the behalf of god. As far as the case is concerned, Lina Joy’s religious belief is god’s prerogative and by implication, it is the community’s prerogative.

Between the two, the latter does not recognize difference in belief or religious freedom while the former does. If one is to draw a Venn diagram, the overlap is obvious where the content of the universal set is claims to rights.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

The source of contention is freedom of belief. Individual rights demand religious freedom while community rights do not but both stake claim for it. Therefore, the question we need to ask and answer is, which rights should take priority? For liberals, the answer is obvious.

As long as this is left unanswered, the issue — the contest of ideologies — the blurriness will stay. Furthermore, saying the Lina Joy case is a question of procedural tantamount to sweeping the dust under the carpet; attributing the case to procedural matter does not solve the matter.

If we as a society would like to come to a common ground, the first thing we need to do is to acknowledge the root course. Attacking the symptoms, which is too common in Malaysia, does nothing.

After all, just as was mentioned by Jonson Chong at a forum on Lina Joy ruling organized by DAP that I attended earlier this week, the law is an mean, not an end.

Categories
Education Liberty Society

[1253] Of coercion, cohesion, unity and liberty within the Malaysian education system

The issue of vernacular schools funded by public money is a very difficult subject for me. The difficulty arises due to choices involving coercion, cohesion, unity and liberty.

For liberals, the racially divided Malaysian society is a painful reality to live in. The history and nature of our society give rise to our current predicament where most issues could be seen through racial lens, be it right or wrong. Our education and political systems reflect exactly that primitive thinking that we suffer.

Before I progress further, the importance of education must be emphasized. Liberals in general, including libertarians, place education very high in their list. Through my readings, the birth of liberalism would not be possible without the accessibility of knowledge to the masses. It is through knowledge, or education, that individuals could fully appreciate personal responsibilities, placing the individuals — the basic unit of a society — on a higher plane compared the situation in a centralize society. Liberalism at its heart is about trust in the individuals; the trust that one shall respect others’ same rights. It is trust that individuals are able to do good. Aristotle’s words describe part of that trust: “I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law“. It is through this trust, through personal responsibilities that one frees oneself from shackles imposed by tyrants. Without education, it is hard for any one of us to build that trust. Lack of education provides fertile ground for dictatorship.

Education is the sculpture of a society. It is a tool. The greater the education level of individuals, the greater the possibility of a creation of a freer individuals and freer individuals create freer society; liberal society. For liberals, primitive communal thinkings do not appeal to them.

The tool could be used to eliminate the primitive division we suffer. This is why the education system receives so much attention, at the very least by liberals, within our society. Liberals understand the gravity of the matter. We understand that the education system could mole a new society that would do away with outdated communal-based politics.

There are liberals that believe the promotion of multicultural society to erase the legacy of divisive communal politics from Malaysian society. They would actively promote the creation or the enhancement of multicultural society — such policies are called multiculturalism — to answer the division that could very much lead to clear expressed bigotry. Once, this appealed to me but I found a clear hint of coercion in multiculturalism. That leads to my rejection of multiculturalism. That however does not mean I reject multicultural societies. I enjoy diversity but I do not wish to have such societal characteristic to be stuff down my throat to suffocate me.

One aspect of multiculturalism through Malaysian context, at least, I seem to think so, is the rejection of vernacular system and promotion of a religiously unbiased national system with the national language as the medium. Through this, tolerance, which is a goal of multiculturalism, would be achieved. After all, inculcating tolerance in the young is easier than trying do to the same thing for an already bigoted adults.

Rejection of multiculturalism however left me grappling to answer a question: how do we overcome this primitive communal politics without multiculturalism? Could a source of bigotry be solved with coercive cohesion at the expense of liberty? Is the liberty so sacred to liberals — libertarians — worth bypassing the unity that all liberals dream of?

The questions relevant to the Malaysian education system, with all those factors in mind is this: should the vernacular system be abolished in favor of national system in the name of unity or should it be left as it is in the name of liberty, for fear of forcefully committing active assimilation against others’ will?

My status quo position until now was the abolition of the vernacular system and placing full support for the national school. Of course, the support for the national system requires qualification and few of them are meritocracy and independence from religion.

Through limited time that I had to contemplate on the matter, I have come to a conclusion that strengthens my trust in the individuals. It is a conclusion that satisfactorily breaks the dualism between coercion and cohesion, between unity and liberty; it is possible to achieve cohesion without coercion, liberty with unity.

This is how: as mentioned earlier, education is the sculpture of a society. Greater level of education introduces greater possibility of one thinking for oneself. This enables one to trust oneself, breaking away from superstitions and illogical orthodoxies, creating confident individuals that rely on the mind to move forward towards enlightenment and beyond. The ability to self-regulate transfers sovereignty from leaders or society, benevolent or malevolent, to individuals.

Higher education level increases the possibility of the birth of another liberal individual, regardless of strain, or at least, individuals that respect others’ liberties. If all liberals are allergic to the communal politics and to an extent accept that vernacular system promotes communal politics and are concerned with coercion and liberty, they would support the national system without actively depriving others of opportunity to vernacular system, assuming all else the same, assuming all qualifications that I stated earlier are incorporated. As the education level of the population goes up, there will be a point that most would like to do away with vernacular education system and thus, only one system that is supported by public money. For a liberal that values tolerance, he would try to inculcate the liberal value in his child and he would likely enroll his child in a system that offers exposure to tolerance. Between a national and a vernacular system, there is more exposure opportunity to tolerance in the former. Hence, the liberal would choose the national system over vernacular system, with all else being the same. Through this, slowly but surely, we will phrase out the public-funded vernacular system without coercion.

If my reasoning is sound, then what we need to do is to increase the quality of our education system to create a less communal politics within our society. This would mean that all we need is the patience and resilience to improve the quality of our education system and eventually, through that system, a quiet revolution for a liberal society.