Walking the middle ground
So, why bother affirming democracy to permit diversity, differences and competition? Why not silence all critics and get the nation focused on one set of goals as the destined leader sees fit?
By Wong Chin Huat, The Nut Graph
MANY Malaysians might say that if there is anything we need more than jobs in these times of economic hardship, it is stability. You read an increasing number of comments that urge people to get priorities right — get more jobs or prevent job cuts — regardless of the issue being discussed.
And how would we do that? If you don't have a clue, a well-learned, unelected public leader has just offered the people some advice: do not engage in "extreme political activities" that burden the police and adversely affect the economy.
I agree with this leader's centrist discourse, that we all must shun "extreme political activities", but beg to differ with his citation of "illegal demonstrations" as the prime example.
Indeed, Malaysians who believe in middle-ground politics must know well the definition of centrism. There are two strands of middle-ground discourse, which I refer to as "authoritarian centrism" and "democratic centrism" for ease of analysis and reference.
Authoritarian centrism
The first strand of centrism is essentially Hobbesian and preys on the human fear of chaos and disorder. Centrism in this perspective is about keeping most people happy enough not to turn to violence.
If something that has been said or done can cause the majority or a vocal minority to feel hurt or agitated, it is defined as extreme and must be punished. The government must therefore be given adequate power to punish those who create trouble, whether they are questioning religion, language, royalty, or the government itself.
In other words, authoritarian centrism is a set of definite values, institutions and policy goals supposedly desired by the majority and backed by the state. Anyone who holds preferences different from that of the "middle ground" is extremist by definition, regardless how such "extremist" preferences are pursued.
So, if the "middle ground" believes in an ethnic hierarchy, advocacy of race-blind egalitarianism is considered extreme. That's why critics of Umno's "social contract" discourse and the New Economic Policy need to be labelled as either Malay traitors or non-Malay chauvinists.
