Can an election ever throw up the right candidate? Or to put it more moderately, is an election the mechanism best suited to throw up representatives that will strive to work for their constituents and attempt to better their life? Are there in-built into the electoral process, a set of imperatives that help pre-determine one kind of outcome, irrespective of the quality of the candidates?
The word which I think most appropriate to describe the present feeling about Umno is disesteem. The word captures all the negatives — dishonour, disrespect, held in low opinion of, repulsive, etc.
Why has it come to that? I think the most important factor has been the increasing disconnect between what is desired by the majority and the small elite that’s leading Umno. And that increasing disconnect has also been caused by Umno’s refusal to hold its own elections. Here is why Umno has made the crucial mistake. It thinks by suspending its own elections it can expel the bad feelings; what it does is only postponing the anger and frustrations and disconnect. What it has done is to build up frustration and anger. That will translate into rejection of Umno.
Thomas Paine, the American writer and thinker, wrote “… prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves.”
Lest the above paragraph makes life miserable for many Umno people, what it means is that if the elected voluntary submit themselves to be judged frequently by their electors, they will be restrained from forming self-interests. The answer to legitimacy therefore is no prolonged suspension of elections but frequent as per provided for by the constitution. Now, if the elected leaders postpone elections indefinitely, that is a strong presumption that those elected have already made a rod for themselves.
How would that place the Umno leaders, chief of all its president who plays hide and seek with us electors on the election date? We will make a strong presumption that his government has lots to hide from our judgment and it is therefore a government deserving of disesteem.
By to-ing and fro-ing on the election date, the PM is making fun of us and insulting our intelligence. Such behaviour shows his lack of understanding on the responsibility of government.
Elections cause frequent interchange with the elector and will establish a common interest with every part of the community that will mutually and naturally support each other and on this depends the strength of government and the happiness of the governed.
What the PM has done is to speak to his own kind, behaving increasingly as a sectarian PM and not PM to the whole nation. He is only keen to establish common interest with his part of the community. His give me your nambikei and lu tolong gua, gua tolong lu reflect insincerity of the highest form.
A responsible leader of the nation helps the governed without expecting, what more demanding any form of reciprocity
There is apparently a security threat in the country and the police Special Branch decides to tell only a collection of young leaders in Parliament yesterday. Was it not important enough to tell the prime minister, the home minister and the National Security Council (NSC)? Or do they know but have kept quiet about it?
It is mind boggling that Bukit Aman Social Extremist Division chief assistant director E2 (M) Datuk Mohd Sofian Md Makinuddin said yesterday the Special Branch detected several Jemaah Islamiah (JI) elements who attempted to infiltrate PAS besides some communist movement elements into the DAP.
“Several leaders from the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) also frequent Bangkok and southern Thailand, believed to attend secret meetings with former Malayan Communist Party (PKM) leaders there.
“The effect is new political ideas which have the potential of threatening the nation’s core values have spread. The movement receives support from foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which assist in terms of finance, training locally and abroad as well as exposure to specific expertise in facing the general election,” the senior intelligence chief said.
New political ideas? From Islamists and communists? Is this the same kind of threat that the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia claimed last year from communists and Christian groups influencing Bersih 2.0, the coalition fighting for clean and fair elections?
Doesn’t this sound like the much-used dog-eared page from the same old playbook to smear the opposition?
On the face of it, this sounds and smells like another politically-inspired finding by the Special Branch. Put JI and PAS together to scare Chinese voters from supporting Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and combine the DAP and communists to put fear in the Malays from supporting PR.
Has the Special Branch heard that communism is dead and does not have much allure anywhere in the world? That political parties such as Umno itself have signed agreements with the Communist Party of China in 2010 for their Youth wings to have leadership exchanges.
And as a civil servant, isn’t Mohd Sofian supposed to be impartial instead of saying: “In this matter, we worry that the opposition parties and NGOs play up controversial issues to stir hatred among the public towards the government by the time the elections come.”
“Or (it’s) to increase demonstrations and incidents which can divert police attention… demonstrations will continue to be a trend in our country,” he was quoted as saying by state news agency Bernama.
Are the threats real or just scare tactics before the polls? Only the Special Branch and Putrajaya can answer that. Or let people make up their mind about who they believe these days.
Increasingly, it would seem that what it takes to win an election is not only very different from what it takes to govern, but might well be at odds with the idea of providing governance. The privileging of representativeness in our democracy, with an emphasis on caste and religion, has meant that electable candidates are chosen with a view to who has the biggest electoral draw in terms representing the interests of a community rather than select those that have a view on issues of policy or administration. At one level, democracy does not require its practitioners to come equipped with a track record, and representativeness is perhaps the most vital element in the idea of democracy, but over a period of time, what representativeness has come to mean identity rather than action; the leader resembles his or her constituents, speaks for them and on the occasion that he or she acts on their behalf, it is often through the same narrow lens of community. Under these circumstances, the election abets the process of weeding out those that see their role in more secular terms, and focuses its attention narrowly on those with more sectarian agendas.
Winning elections requires a peculiar kind of caste and community arithmetic, multiplied by financial resources and propped up by on-ground muscle. The reason why the incidence of criminality in politics has been such a visible presence is partly due to the fact there are great similarities between the two skill sets. It is easier for a local tough to become a politician than it is for a local schoolteacher, to use a crude stereotype, not only because it easier for the former to mobilise resources and numbers far more easily but also because the electorate sees more advantages in being represented by someone who can thump the table on their behalf rather than someone who is not seen to have a realistic chance of winning.
The prospect of winnability makes unsuitable choices rational, for it is seen to be smarter to align with those that could win rather than root for those that might act on one’s behalf much more usefully if elected, but are seen with little real chance of doing so. Money is the other reason why only those that already have the ability or are able to generate it, are found suitable to be offered as candidates. The political system wards off change at the point of entry itself, by making the entry level conditions unsuitable for anyone but those that toe the existing line and play by the rules already laid down.
The election requires that a large number of people exercise their preference for one candidate over the others on the basis of some knowledge and familiarity with the individual’s previous track record, the party that he or she represents, the promises made, and the overall feeling of empathy and trust generated by the individual. Given the sizes of constituencies and the scale of the geographies involved, it is difficult for someone who is already not a visible presence in at least part of the constituency to mobilise adequate support. Chances are that the choices will veer towards those that already enjoy a measure of prominence and power in the area- superannuated student leaders, local toughs, successful lawyers, families of politicians, wealthy landlords, caste and community leaders and the like.
The underlying assumption of elections is that every individual takes a personal decision, on the basis of the inputs received, to choose the person deemed suitable to represent his or her interests. The truth is in the Indian social construct, the individual does not necessarily act as a singular entity and is often inclined to act as part of a larger collective. This is true not only of elections, but of many other walks of life. The election is in some ways almost asking for people to find their own appropriate collective and to cobble together enough numbers so as to increase the bargaining power at their disposal. It is rational to do so, for otherwise every individual feels virtually no ability to influence the outcome.
The middle class distrust of politicians is in part a sense of frustration with the electoral process. Part of the reason why visible outrage does not automatically translate into higher voting percentages is because the idea is laced with a sense of presumptive futility. It is also the reason why movements like the one led by Anna Hazare get traction; the apolitical nature of the struggle is found valuable. The disenchantment with the movement is in part due to its involvement in electoral politics; the paradox being that the impetus for change cannot succeed unless it becomes a variable in the elections but the very act of getting involved with anything to do with elections is seen as an act of contamination.
Electoral reforms will help. But too much has to change before reforms by themselves can be effective. As a structure, elections cannot create intent; that must exist in the system. Without intent, the structure merely re-inforces and perhaps amplifies all that is already wrong. Even when elections are not rigged, in some ways they always are. If not by design, then by definition
The election of India’s next President was described as a foregone conclusion from the moment the Congress party, which leads the ruling coalition, announced its candidate: the finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee. Yet a bitter contest also ensued. A challenge was mounted by the former Speaker of the Lower House, PA Sangma, later supported by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. Reports speculated on deals being made by various parties in exchange for their support for the ruling party’s chosen candidate.
The contest complicated India’s coalition politics. A member of the ruling coalition, Trinamool Congress, from Mukherjee’s home state of West Bengal, refused to back him, while a party from the opposition coalition declined to back Sangma. Sangma had to resign from his own party, which is in the ruling coalition, to run for the Presidency. Meanwhile allegations of corruption were made against Mukherjee – which he denied. The process of choosing the “first citizen” of India degenerated into undignified politicking – the very thing it is meant to be above.
If the answer to who will be the next President of India was already known, a more pertinent question at this juncture might have been to ask why India needs a President at all, and by what process such a person should be selected. What is the purpose today of such a supposedly ceremonial head of state, and is the position by now so devalued as to be beyond redemption?
| Frost over the World – Pranab Mukherjee |
Discussions about the origins of the position of President of India usually refer to the moment when India became a republic in 1950. As the constitution of independent India came into force, the position of the British monarch was apparently replaced by an Indian ceremonial head of state. But this is hardly a satisfactory explanation. Why did India need an equivalent of the British monarch? Britain does not have a written constitution, and the position of its monarch evolved over several centuries through conflict with parliament over power. This is not India’s history. There may be a case for replicating a constitutional structure from another country, but the case must be made, and made in terms of India’s politics and constitutional requirements readmore http://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment