Analysing Politics in Malaysia: Good-For-Nothing Grassroots
This is part of a series analysing the political situation on the ground in Malaysia. For an overview of the series, and a list of all its parts, please refer to the introduction. To comment on this series, a discussion thread on the forum has been opened.
Politics in Malaysia, despite the talk of our politicians, is not really grassrooots-driven. There is a constant reference to the "grassroots" in the statements of our politicians, but in reality, the grassroots are good for nothing.
Of course, that is a bit of an exaggeration in the sense that the grassroots are good for something. They're good for photo ops to show off to the press and make people think that the parties actually have some support. They're also a good political tool — people don't like what you're doing? Just make some reference to the grassroots, and you'll win the moral high ground.
But is that what the grassroots should be doing in a "developed" country, as our politicians would often have us benchmarked by? Is that what the grassroots should be doing in a democracy, as a politicians often claim we are? Are the grassroots meant as mere decor to be showed off, or are they meant to be an actual part of the political process?
In a democracy, what are the grassroots good for? A lot more than mere decoration. A democracy is all about the grassroots, because a democracy is about the people, rather than the leaders, being sovereign. The leaders are accountable to the people. They serve the grassroots, rather than the grassroots serving them.
What role do the grassroots have to play in the Malaysian political process? Almost nothing. If you are the member of a political party, you don't really have anything to do except show up for party meetings, maybe attend the odd illegal rally or two, and buy the party organ.
You have no actual role to play in the political process. You can't select your leaders — you can elect branch and division heads, but you can't elect your party president. You can't even choose who your party will nominate for your constituency, so you end up being forced to vote for whoever the party's elite decide is best for you — the exact opposite of what a true democracy is.
In any developed country, even independent voters have more rights than the typical rank and file of a Malaysian political party. In many American states, independent voters can vote in primary elections for the candidates they would like to see in the general election. In almost any developed country, and many undeveloped countries, voters can choose who they want to represent them in their local council — party members in this country have zero say over any such thing.
Even many policy decisions are open to voters. In several American states, there is a specific education board which is elected by the voters, so they have a near-direct say over their education policy. Many democracies allow voters to initiate policies through a petition for a referendum, and many major decisions, such as a constitutional amendment, must be approved by a referendum.
Our leaders talk a lot about making Malaysia a developed country. Sometimes they even go further and talk about having a developed mindset as well as developed infrastructure. All well and good.
But if we want to truly call ourselves a developed state, we must have a developed political process. The grassroots should not be good for nothing. Every man and woman must have a role to play in the political process. The voters, the grassroots, are not something to be shoved under the carpet during the intervening period between elections, and brought out for show every four or five years.
In a democracy, power is derived from the people. Our leaders would do well to remember that, for they have a mandate to make this country a developed one. If they want us to be a developed country, they had better get to work on developing our political process.
This is part of a series analysing the political situation on the ground in Malaysia. For an overview of the series, and a list of all its parts, please refer to the introduction. To comment on this series, a discussion thread on the forum has been opened.
(Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "Analysing Politics in Malaysia": | |
|---|---|
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 948 IP Logged | Posted at 11:45:06 am Jan 7, 2007
This is a thread for discussing the current series being run on Infernal Ramblings: Analysing Politics in Malaysia. If you have any public comments to make, feel free to give your two sen. Unfortunately, I have made it mandatory for users to register before they can comment, in order to crack down on spineless cowards willing to take irresponsible potshots from the sidelines. If you want your opinion to be heard, back it up by being willing to give a name to the opinion. Registration is quick and simple, and will allow you to post new threads, forum polls, and reply to existing topics. You will also be able to vote for polls on the main site. (I currently do not run any polls because we have very few active registered users.) An interesting topic related to the series that you might like to discuss is whether the opposition is effectively utilising political analysis in its campaigns. BN seems to be an efficient player - it knows what issues are close to the hearts of the electorate, and how to play off the voters against each other. Has the opposition been effectively applying political analysis as well? |
| Last five replies (0 comments not shown): | |
|
freelunch2020
Member Posts: 17 IP Logged | Posted at 8:35:21 am Jan 8, 2007
 hey there john, what is your response to my comment? would like to know what u think. tks.  here's to our friendship and to a transparent and clean govt  |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 948 IP Logged | Posted at 9:55:01 am Jan 8, 2007
You can find my reply here.  |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 948 IP Logged | Posted at 2:45:21 am Jan 9, 2007
I think it'd be a bit less cumbersome to argue here...and it'd also probably allow others to chime in as well. If you don't mind, I'll quote your email and include my response here. "What this argument does not take into account is the opposition's manifesto. Even in times of prosperity, the opposition can make a case for bringing even further development to the country (naturally by voting the opposition in)." Well, I never said that BN had a superb track record on the economy. (I think I used the term "mediocre" at least once to describe it.) The point was that there's a general perception that BN has successfully developed our country, and BN has constantly capitalised on that perception, even if it lacks much grounding in reality. (It's not really commonly known, but many of Mahathir's economic projects were either planned by earlier PMs, such as Putrajaya and possibly KLIA, or turned out to be complete duds such as Proton. Mahathir also didn't have to do much to develop the country - we would have been carried along by the rising tide in Asia prior to 1997/98, regardless of what he did, unless he closed off all doors to the world.) It is of course correct that PAS has lost much ground because of the perception that it is too fundamentalist. I've heard that it's not as bad as it used to be, but I don't know enough to say if this perception is still true. At any rate, this is something we can agree on. "And in a time of economic crisis, it should be a natural response to promise to address the grave situation. The opposition, however, has consistently focused on what are essentially non-issues for most Malaysians." These issues are relevant to people like us, but not necessarily to other people. Talk with the typical Malaysian about the ISA, and he will of course agree that it is terrible, draconian, and probably unnecessary. But is campaigning against the ISA alone going to win his vote? The DAP has brought up a number of issues - there is nothing wrong with this, as I said - but these do not coagulate to form a coherent and unified platform. Lim Guan Eng bravely went to jail for exposing the rape of a young schoolgirl by the Melaka Menteri Besar, but this in itself would not win many votes because: 1. Many voters never heard of this issue in the first place; 2. It simply was not a bread and butter issue, except possibly to people in Melaka. For many people, they would not care too much about the personal crimes of a politician in some other state. What they would care about is whether they can earn a decent living, and the like. The DAP should criticise the government and hammer away at its indiscretions. However, it must remember that BN = bad does not mean DAP = good. The DAP has to assert both equations - it has to make it clear that not only that BN is bad, but that the DAP is good, and can run the country better than BN has. That is the main thrust of my argument. these oppression of these rights HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT on the bread and butter of normal malaysians, eg. corruption --> our police: can we really trust them? so many will be willing to close-one-eye if paid off. just take a look at the high-profile murder cases. This is exactly what I have been saying, and I have not said that these issues shouldn't be brought up. My point is that we should not focus on the weaknesses of the current government alone, but also focus on the strengths of the opposition. Running on the platform of not being BN is not going to be enough to persuade voters who are naturally inclined to vote BN out of habit. "However, the average Malaysian couldn't care less - all he wants is to drink teh tarik and drive around in his car. Infringe on these sacred rights, and even the most docile voter can become an enraged tiger." That is exactly what I have been getting at - there is a natural wellspring of energy and anger when the government hurts us economically, but the opposition cannot capitalise on it because the government is perceived as the lesser of two evils! The DAP/Keadilan/PAS need to not only tear down BN, but build themselves up in the public eye. It is not enough to criticise the government - one must also show how the opposition will be superior to the government. Otherwise, the case for the opposition is left hanging because only one side has been presented. "In the long run, I believe this will materialise. However, as John Maynard Keynes memorably said, in the long run, we are all dead. The point is not to ignore the long run - the point is to make sure that we aren't dismissing a problem by suggesting it will simply vanish given enough time." Hehe, I am a political pragmatist. I have ideals, but (speaking hypothetically since I don't plan on being a politician) I will only apply those ideals once I am in office. On the campaign trail, I will do whatever is necessary to get elected (provided this will not hamstring me once I enter office - it would be insane, for example, to run on a campaign of Islamic values, and once in office, make it a crime to be a Muslim, just to take a ridiculous example). Lee Kuan Yew applied this tactic in the early days of the PAP - he played to the communist audience to get into office, and once in office, sold out the communists - although this is obviously not an example that should be followed blindly. In short, the thing about politics is that it is by nature very short term, because what you are doing is running for election. It is statesmanship that should take the long term view into account. A statesman who wants to get elected cannot be a statesman while stumping for votes - he has to be a politician. I am currently focusing on the political aspect - I am not saying that we should put aside the long term altogether. "The centrepiece of any platform should be economic development, reform, and a master plan for our country's future. It is not enough to suggest that the government's plans are lacking - we must present alternatives of our own." Yes, I personally would be quite interested in seeing the plan once (if?) it is ready. I understand the basic ideas presented by Anwar, but I want to know how he will implement them. The devil is in the details. "(Oh yes, and incidentally, I can't see how corruption is causing "a general stagnation of wages" - perhaps someone could explain this to me?)" I wasn't being sarcastic - I was sincerely asking for an explanation, which you graciously provided. My understanding of the issue is based on macroeconomic theory, which suggests that even if the money is siphoned by some useless subcontractor, it does not vanish. It has to go somewhere. Let's say Ali gets that extra RM20 million for doing nothing. What will he do with it? He can put it in the bank, where it will be invested in the economy, and balance out the lost wages in a different sector. He can spend it on buying a new fleet of foreign cars with his APs, which would raise the wages of the employees of the foreign automaker, both in Malaysia (e.g. the salesman) and in the home country of the firm. The money does not simply disappear into thin air - it has to reappear in another sector of the economy, where the losses will be balanced out. That's why I find the explanation a bit confusing - I was able to infer your point #1 originally, but it didn't make much sense to me because of the macroeconomic principles concerning the flow of money. Unless Ali just puts the RM20 million under his mattress, it has to reappear in another part of the economy, where some of it will be turned into wages and offset the losses in the sector where he siphoned money from. The point about corruption is very true - but at any rate, the only people being hurt would be those who got their jobs because of corruption, so I hardly think that it would be appealing to them to run on an anti-corruption platform. :p "Recruiting big names is of little use unless the big names craft an actual policy document which is then given wide circulation." Haha, that is so true. The reason I say that the opposition needs solid policies is that it needs to create this perception that it is more competent and capable of running the country than BN. There needs to be a policy document in order to satisfy this - there's nothing like a thick stack of paper to show that you know your stuff. There has to be some reality behind the mirage as well. john, it's invigorating to debate with you but i do prefer a less antagonistic approach. let's debate with civility. visit intellectualinsurgent.blogspot.com to have an idea of what i am talking about. :D Well, unfortunately I tend to be quite abrasive when I debate - it's nothing personal (just ask any of my friends...). If anything I've said has rubbed you the wrong way, I apologise. |
