Tag: democracy

[2007] Of fraud in Iran?

ALERT & UPDATE: Death has been reported in Iran. See Tehran Bureau.

There are reports of fraud committed during the Iranian presidential election.

Why are there people believing that fraud has been commited?

In recent days, Mr. Moussavi’s supporters were predicting a wide victory, citing voter surveys. And Mr. Ahmadinejad, the hard-line incumbent, had appeared on the defensive, hurling extraordinary accusations at some of the Islamic republic’s founding figures.

Iran’s Interior Ministry said Saturday that final results gave Mr. Ahmadinejad 62.6 percent of the vote, with Mr. Moussavi receiving 33.7 percent. The ministry says turnout was a record 85 percent of eligible voters.

Though there was no word of Mr. Moussavi’s whereabouts on Saturday, statements on his Web site made clear that he was contesting the official line. [Ahmadinejad Re-Elected; Protests Flare. Robert F. Worth. New York Times. June 13 2009]

An article in Wikipedia however states this:

The opinion polls in Iran have been considered unreliable. A number of polls conducted between relatively small voting groups, like university students and workers, have been reported as election propaganda. More general polls reported in the media do not state the polling organization nor the basic facts about the methodology. The results show a high variance and depend heavily on who is reporting the poll.[Iranian presidential election, 2009: Opinion polls. Wikipedia. Accessed June 13 2009]

It is not quite clear to me if it is a case of fraud or a case of where the loser refuses to accept defeat. But in any case, the way the presidential elections are ran in Iran does not command confidence: only candidates pre-approved by a cabal are allowed to contest.^[1]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

^[1] — See President of Iran at Wikipedia. Accessed June 12 2009]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — after reading the issue and the latest developing closely, I believe this could easily be an opportunity for a liberal revolution in Iran.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

pp/s — Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan presents the case for fraud.

Tags democracy, fraud, Iran

Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government Society

[1986] Of democracies exist because…

Post author By Hafiz Noor Shams
Post date Monday, May 18 2009
No Comments on [1986] Of democracies exist because…

For those who fear confrontation with respect to Perak may lead us to the path of Thailand:

Democracies exist only because enough people were unwilling to be sheep, and brave enough to fight violent wars to achieve a share in power. [Page 227. Good and Bad Power: The Ideals and Betrayals of Government. Geoff Mulgan.]

I consider it as a game of war of attrition.

Tags democracy, Geoff Mulgan

Politics & government

[1672] Of voting is a waste of time, they say

Post author By Hafiz Noor Shams
Post date Thursday, May 29 2008
3 Comments on [1672] Of voting is a waste of time, they say

What a waste of time. That was how some Barisan Nasional members of Parliament felt about being forced to vote in the Parliament recently.^[1]^[2]

This clearly demonstrates their disrespect for democratic process and how they view their jobs.

The sentiment originates from the fact that BN control more than half of the seats in the Parliament. By that virtue alone, BN maintain the majority power in the Parliament. There is however a little footnote to such statement: only those present during the actual voting session can vote. As a direct result, more than 82 BN MPs must be present to ensure that they win the contest by a simple majority, assuming all 82 Pakatan Rakyat MP are present and all MPs vote according to their party line.

The event of May 28 in the Dewan Rakyat proves the importance of attendance in the Parliament. It is a lesson that majority power cannot be taken from granted.

Initially, the Speaker swung to BN way after a voice vote was taken but when PR MPs contested his decision, he agreed to bloc voting instead. This action saw BN MPs suddenly scrambling to assemble their MPs far and wide, many whom were absence. Even the Prime Minister came running into the House to vote on the matter.^[3]

The question is, why are these individuals not in the Parliament in the first place? For Ministers and their deputies, it is comprehensible but for other MPs, their absence should be frown upon.

Perhaps, they think that attending parliamentary sessions is a waste of time? And it was the first ever bloc vote in the history of the Malaysian Parliament no less and they say it is a waste of time!^[4]

One of the very few advantages of one-party system is that such arrangement avoids arguments and debate that may delay a body from arriving to a decision, for better or for worse. Perhaps, these BN MPs were too comfortable with the autocratic system that they had lived in earlier that they have yet to wake up to the new more democratic reality.

I for one support the PR MPs’ action. It forces all MPs to take their attendance in the Parliament seriously. If attending a session is too much of a hassle, then you are not fit to be an MP.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

^[1] — That isn’t the point actually. We wasted half and hour of precious debate time for the vote despite the Opposition knowing full well that the party with the majority is the government. [Real winners and losers. Nur Jazlan Mohamed. The Malaysian Insider. May 28 2008]

^[2] — After Wan Junaidi announced the voting result, Cabinet ministers and government supporters thumped their tables as a sign of ”victory” while shouts of “what a waste of time” were heard. [Bill approved by block voting for first time. The Malaysian Insider. May 29 2008]

^[3] — Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dashed out to the lobby and quickly signalled members to come in.

This prompted ministers, Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai, Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam and other backbenchers in the lounge to abandon their cuppas.

Some of the ministers were also summoned from the Dewan Negara, which is currently also in session.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi walked briskly from his tower block office while Najib went in just before him.

As the seconds to the vote count ran down, the backbenchers began to relax as they saw Abdullah and Najib walking to their places. [Dewan Rakyat: High drama as opposition calls a vote by division. New Straits Times. May 29 2008]

^[4] — KUALA LUMPUR: Block voting was carried out in the Dewan Rakyat for the first time to allow part of the Supplementary Supply Bill 2007 to be passed after several Opposition members noted the lack of quorum in the House. [Dewan Rakyat: First ever block voting. The Star. May 28 2008]

Tags democracy

Liberty

[1463] Of Malaysia is a democracy

Post author By Hafiz Noor Shams
Post date Tuesday, December 4 2007
6 Comments on [1463] Of Malaysia is a democracy

Recent events had provoked outrage amid those that sympathized with the idea of individual liberty. With a stake of woods burning, BN-led government threw fuel into the fire, allowing it to burn more brightly than before. One of the more angering statements, to me personally, was made by a minister that had the cheek to claim that no force was used to disperse protesting crowd whereas on the contrary, clearly caught on camera, the police did fire tear gas and water cannon. Another claim which I wish to address here concerns claim that Malaysia is a democratic country. While many understandably would like to fiercely dispute that, Malaysia is a democratic country. What it is not, in practice, strictly speaking, is a liberal democracy.

When the minister made that assertion, my initial reaction was of pure disbelief. Frankly however, I need time to rationalize something and any reaction that comes immediately after an event may be prompted by emotion without proper consideration. As emotion subsided, as it always does with time, I began to impartially reassess at the minister’s assertion. My conclusion is that, Malaysia is a democratic country, in the purest sense of the word.

As written earlier, democracy in its purest form is majoritarianism. Many however assumes the term democracy is liberal democracy instead of, well, simply democracy.

To the defense of those that disagree with the minister, the term democracy and its underlying assumptions have evolved ever since the ancient Greek popularized it. The ideological triumph of liberalism over socialism in the 20th century later made the word liberal in liberal democracy redundant. Slowly as liberalism proliferates everywhere, many come to associate democracy with liberal democracy. Day in and day out, what was simply an act done in simplicity’s sake has become an act of redefinition as far as popular opinion is concerned. As liberal democracy becomes accepted norm and taken for granted but is referred to democracy instead, the fact that the word democracy today enjoys a polymorphic but inaccurate definition is forgotten. Those that take liberty for granted usually are less rigorous in rationalizing their liberalism. These people especially are unable to recognize the difference between pure democracy and liberal democracy.

But ignorance is no reason to erase that line that separates the two types of democracy. While I am uncertain if the BN-led government as a whole realizes the difference between the two, it is quite clear that the government refers to majoritarianism when it talks of democracy. Under this definition which is perfectly fine — and I would argue, the most accurate — Malaysia is a democratic country. Elections have been held on regular basis. There are serious flaws in Malaysian democratic processes but Malaysia fits the shape of crude majoritarianism. Nothing compels a society of pure democracy to respect liberty.

With that respect, Malaysia is not a liberal democracy; a democracy that respects individual liberty which includes free speech and freedom of assembly, among others.

One may argue that BN-government is stuck in the past and has yet to move along the evolution of ideas that transformed the popular definition of democracy but in all honesty, both definitions of democracy, of majoritarian and of liberal, are perfectly valid. The former appeals to majority rule while the latter fuses the best of democracy with liberalism.

In the end, what this highlights is the importance of definition. Without being on the same page, it is hard to move forward.