I explain that it is the latter; in that this imbalance facilitates volatility in society for which the use of prerogatives and patronage becomes justified in the minds of the Establishment so as to maintain a state of equilibrium. This exacerbates a conflict in the role of leadership, between the duty to protect society from inter and intra communal instability (because of the impact of non-inclusivity), and the desire to maintain its ideological dominance for the sake of protecting the status quo. The use of the ISA, the incidence of institutionalised chauvinism, issues around the independence of the judiciary, money politics, nepotism and cronyism, a lack of transparency in government, are all symptoms of this malignant condition.
I conclude that the core nation-building principles (which include justice, character building, common values, democracy and equity) are compromised because of this imbalance and conflict. And unless they are addressed at source, we are doomed to fail as a nation, no matter who is at its helm, or the fact that Pakatan Rakyat might be able to form an alternative government to the Barisan Nasional (because the contradiction in ideology between its member parties, and their respective non-inclusiveness (at least for Pas and DAP), renders a rupture inevitable. As such the "imbalance" in the democratic framework that I spoke of will prevail).
If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that the underlying problem is the war of ideologies between three stakeholder communities in Malaysia, i.e.:
1. Malays, who would like to maintain the hegemony under the guise of a multiracial joint venture;
2. Non-Malays, who would like to get rid of this hegemony forever, by dismantling race-based politics; and
3. Muslims, who want to put in place a theocracy.
Of course, there are a growing number of Malays who support b), as there are a number of non-Malays who support a) and/or c), but in reality each of these numbers are a minority and insignificant. And the key protagonists in each community will jealously guard their position and keep such dissenting alternative voices small and unheard, by ensuring that the flock remains loyal to its cause. That is what apparatchiks are there for!
The impact that prerogatives and patronage have on the country will always be interpreted and profiled in a manner so as to support each warring side's ideological position. It is all about spin, and yet such spin can have dastardly effect. Each side claims to have moral authority, and has its own group of extremists, as they do their own moderate voices to do their worst bidding. Today b) and c) are allies. But the permanence of that allegiance is as secure as the permanence of spring. Unity talks are already afoot between Pas and Umno to shift the balance of power yet again.
But it is a zero-sum game. There will be no winners in the long run, nor is there a basis upon which any side can claim moral superiority. We will ALL be losers. If we do not manoeuvre out of this conundrum soon, a dangerous situation will soon develop, especially if our economy goes into free fall.
We have no choice. We must find a compromise that creates a ying-yang-like harmony and balance, before it is too late. What I advocate in the book is a multi-party system that is predicated on inclusiveness (i.e. by ensuring that both sides of the House equally represent the interest of all major communities in Malaysia) in form and in substance. For this to work, we have to accept that political participation must require the proof of multi-ethnic membership and complementary power sharing between stakeholder representatives. If a balanced structure can be achieved, there will be hope for the country.
Some readers have come up to me and expressed concerns about how my proposal might affect fundamental rights of freedom of association, and that in itself is an infringement of democratic rights. I cannot dispute that this suggestion does places such a restriction, albeit limited. But we must look at the bigger picture. What is the use of such freedom (in so far as preventing the formation of non-inclusive political parties that appeal only to one race or another is concerned) if as a result there is much greater loss to the nation by way of economic peril, impinged civil rights, the continuance of non-transparent and non-inclusive government, and the failure of key nation-building principles, if the structural imbalance and consequent conflict continues unabated. In fact, it is only when we have such a balanced system in place that we will finally be in a position to have true and meaningful democratic reforms that we have for so long coveted.
Some readers have suggested that my proposal entrenches ethnic boundaries as opposed to dismantling them. I would disagree. The proposal recognises social cleavages along communal lines as they currently exist, and acknowledges the need to manage sectarianism responsibly in the best interests of all Malaysians. However, it leaves open the door for the removal of the distrust between communities, to make way for the emergence of a Bangsa Malaysia who are united behind a political manifesto without any deference to ethnicity. Good things come to those who wait. We must be patient, and take this first step if we want to get to achieve true unity in due course. In any event, inclusive multi-party systems will encourage centrist and moderate policy-making on both sides of the political divide, given each side's equal dependence on the support of BOTH the Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera communities.
Are Malaysians and political parties willing to consider such a proposal? I deal with this in the chapter called “The Value and Price To Reset”. It is tempting to ignore what I am proposing, given its difficulty in implementation, particularly when each protagonist (rightly or wrongly) believes that their victory is at hand, or would rather maintain the chaos of the status quo than to give any ground to its rival protagonist (a perverse and destructive “lose-lose” logic). The non-Malays fighting for an end to race-based politics (who might wrongly think that Pakatan Rakyat is its saviour) might not support the proposal, just like the Malays fighting for the maintenance of the hegemony, and who wrongly think that Umno will survive the latest onslaught and forever be the only relevant representative of the Malays, might similarly do likewise. The theocrats arguably have the most to lose by supporting an inclusive political model! But the more Umno/BN and its supporters appreciate its political mortality, and the more Pakatan Rakyat realises how unlikely it is for the coalition to work in the long run, and the more this imbalance and conflict that I speak of is understood, and the more that we accept the notion of a “win-win” solution, then the more likely will a proposal such as what I have outlined become an acceptable alternative for all sides.
We need to all speak with the voice of moderation and realise the dangers of this ideological war and recognise that there will not be any winners, if we each cannot compromise. We must realise that the imbalance in democratic choice adds fuel to the fire by supplying fodder to each warring faction's cause without being able to kill off the enemy and to let true peace reign. And all of this is leading us to a point of self-destruction. Let's step back from the “self-destruct” button and look to reset our bearings as a nation, instead.
