Keeping abreast with Malaysian news can be a very frustrating exercise. One can either be humored by the many political soap operas or be filled with dismay at the way some people can limbo rock so low to achieve mileage in their playing field.
The past few months has seen five by-elections being held at ridiculous prices. My heart breaks when I think of the opportunity costs of these by-elections and how the money could have been channeled to where help is needed, not because a chosen representative has changed his or her mind (of course, if it is due to the death of a representative, then it is understandable). When it suits certain quarters, they will stand for elections. When they going gets tough, they step down and make way for others and justify their move in a thousand and one ways. Should there not be a law that penalizes one for giving up his/her seat? It is not fair that tax payers money is being used to pander the whims and fancies of a person's political ambitions.
Sure, in any democratic government, the people have the right to choose. But when the chosen one refuses to serve for some ridiculous reason or fear or because of obstacles in their way, who will actually suffer? The rakyat, of course.
As it stands, there are many heartbreaking issues which confront us today.
In a democratic government, which is what we are SUPPOSED to have, key principles include free and open elections, the rule of law, and a separation of powers, typically into the following:
* Legislature (law-making)Ideally, those three powers must be separated to prevent tyrannical rule (authoritarianism, etc) and to ensure that one does not influence the other. Better still, the government should engage the rakyat in political debate and increase citizen participation - a near-impossible situation here, of course.
* Executive (actually governing within those laws)
* Judiciary (system of courts to administer justice)
To successfully implement such a move, education of politics is also important. Instead of teaching school children MORAL, a subject which is much hated by most, our school children should be taught the principles of our system of governance. In doing so, when they grow up, they would be in a better position to make intelligent choices during elections.
Of course, there is the debate about whether one should have a minimalist government and direct democracy, whereby a smaller government run by experts in their field may be better than involving all people in all issues at all time. In a sense this may be true, but the risk with this approach is if it is seen to exclude people, then such governments may lose legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate. Needless to say, a host of problems and instability would follow.
Direct democracy, on the other hand, may encourage activism and participation, but the concern is if this can be sustained for a long period of time, or not. Regardless of the system issues such as how to handle efficiency, participation, informed decision making and accountability, etc. must be taken into consideration.
We must also not forget the historical aspect of our country - a topic which has been written to death so I will not discuss it here in my post. What I am more concerned about is the fact that we need a strong leadership to guide our country towards development and progress for all. This might mean more integration of powers, to prevent instability or the old rulers attempting to manipulate different branches of government, for example. However, in this scenario, there is of course a greater threat that that strong leadership would become susceptible to being consumed by that power, and it may become harder to give it up later. No matter what, accountability and transparency are vital if the rakyat are to give the leadership their full support. But the current trends seem to prove otherwise...
To achieve the openness that transparency and accountability gives, there is an important need for a free press, independent from government like what I discussed in my post yesterday on PRESS FREEDOM - FACT, FICTION OR IRONY? Such a media often represents the principle of the universal right to free speech. This combination is supposed to allow people to make informed choices and decisions thereby contributing to political debate, productively.
Transparency and accountability also requires more bureaucracy as decisions and processes need to be recorded and made available for the general public to access, debate and discuss, if necessary. This seems easy to forget and so it is common to hear concerns raised about the inefficiency of some governmental department and of late, a particular ministry!!
Efficiency, however, should not necessarily be measured in terms of how quickly a specific action is completed or even how much it costs (though these can be important too). The long-term impact is often important and the need to be open/transparent may require these extra steps.
A simple comparison on procuring a service may help highlight this:
* A responsible government may request a tender for contract. An open process to document these and how/why a final choice was made is important so that there is openness, understanding, and accountability to the people. For example, the media, and rakyat can use this to determine whether or not decisions have been made with the best interests in mind. Some of the higher profile issue may require sustained public discourse and expensive media coverage, too.Even when companies are subject to these same requirements of openness (to shareholders, to whom public companies are accountable), governments may have requirements that companies do not have, such as providing universal access to a service such as health care. Companies, however, can chose what market segments they wish to go for.
* With a private company, the same process could be followed, but all workers (especially in a large company) and shareholders are not equal, and the company’s board is usually entrusted to make many decisions quickly. They do not have to record every single detail or even request an open tender for contract if they don’t want to. The “market” and the shareholders will presumably hold the company to account.
A government may therefore incur costs and expenditures that are not needed by a private company. This raises legitimate concerns about excessive drives for privatization being led by misguided principles, or the wrong type of efficiency. Conversely, one could hide behind the excuse of democratic accountability if accused of not acting quickly and decisively enough. Openness, transparency, independent media, etc. are therefore key to assuring such processes are not abused in either direction.
Another problem that could occur is if voter turnout is low during a by-election.What does it mean for the health of a democracy if 75% of the electorate, for whatever reason, did not actually vote for the “winner”? Such a low voter turnout however, represents a concern for a genuine democracy as a sufficient percentage of the electorate has either chosen not to vote, or not been able to vote (or had their votes rejected). Then, should the elected representative still represent the people? Who should be held responsible then for the low turnout, especially if the polling day was fixed on a working day, in the middle of the week (which makes it most inconvenient for some to return to their hometowns to vote) ?
There could be a numerous reasons for low voter turnout, including
* Voter apathyThe common criticism leveled at those who do not vote seems to be to blame them for being apathetic and irresponsible, noting that “with rights come responsibilities.” There is often some truth to this, but not only are those other reasons for not voting lost in this blanket assumption of apathy, but voting itself isn’t the only important task for an electorate.
* Disenfranchisement
* Parties or candidates not representing people's choices
* Voter intimidation
Being able to make informed decisions is also important. What can the leading party offer to voters? The rakyat can think and they are not as clueless as they used to be in the past, neither are they as poorly informed. Is choosing not to vote then apathy or is it an informed decision? In other cases, the media may not help much with the sort of reporting that is evident, exacerbating the whole process of making a simple decision.
In some countries voter intimidation can take on violent forms and discourage people to vote for anyone other than a militia’s favored group. Recently, in Zimbabwe, the leading opposition felt they had to withdraw from the election process as voter intimidation by militias supporting Robert Mugabe was getting too violent. Mugabe’s government decided to carry on with the elections anyway, which seemed pointless to most but not to him; as he obviously would—and did—win.
From a theoretical viewpoint, everyone knows that true democracy does not and cannot exist but still, each of us has to grapple with its paradoxes including the following:
* People may vote in non-democratic forces. Is there a guarantee today that what the people voted will be the government that they get? The answer is obvious, isn't it?Honestly, I am filled with a deep sadness as I write this post. I have been trying to write this post since 1 p.m. this afternoon, trying to make sense of all that is happening but I am constantly baffled by the absurdities of the current scenario, not knowing whether to laugh, to cry, or to fall on my knees to pray. Sometimes, I refuse to acknowledge all that is happening, choosing to live in denial and false security but then, suppression is not good for one's health and so, after wrestling within, I am at the end of the post. Do I have any answers? Nope. I am but a humble, inconspicuous rakyat, one who loves my country and hopes that there will be a strong wind of change that will blow in favor of the masses. Whether it really blows hard or dies down depends on the conscience of the leaders, if they have a conscience. I really hope they do.
* Democracies may discriminate the minority in favor of the majority
* Those with non-democratic political ambitions may use the ideals of democracy to attain power and influence.
* More propaganda may be needed in democracies than some totalitarian regimes, in order to gain/maintain support for some aggressive actions and policies.
* Regular elections lead to short government life-time. This seems to result in more emphasis on short term goals and safer issues that appeal to populist issues. It also diverts precious time toward re-election campaigns. This is exactly what is happening to our country! So much time, focus, energy and efforts by concerned groups, NGOs and of course political parties have been wasted on all these by-election campaigns, not forgetting the ridiculous expense.
* Anti-democratic forces may use the democratic process to get voted in or get policies enacted in their favor. (For example, some policies may be voted for or palatable because of immense lobbying and media savvy campaigning by those who have money (individuals and companies) even if some policies in reality may undermine some aspects of democracy).
* Those with money are more able to advertise and campaign for elections thus favoring elitism and oligarchy instead of real democracy. Certain parties have the election machinery and the added advantage...
* Deliberate confusion of concepts such as economic preferences and political preferences e.g. party hopping or desertion such as what happened recently in one particular state may result in serious problems.
