Heading Towards Class Collaboration

What the Hell is Class Collaboration? You tell me, but the dictionary explains it as “a belief that the division of society into a hierarchy of social classes is a positive and essential aspect of civilization.

In simpler terms it means that different classes of people are advantageous to a society as a whole or that both the lower and the higher classes should accept their roles and perform their respective duties, hence the term “Class Collaboration”. Early Japan and India are prime examples of Class Collaboration where the people are separated into different classes.

Now, ask yourself this, “Is it good or it is bad?” Well, let me rephrase it. It was Benito Mussolini that said, “[Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men” (hence the different classes) and given this premise, fascists concluded that the preservation of social hierarchy is in the interests of all classes, and therefore all classes should collaborate in its defense (and continuing existence). If Mussolini the promoter is able to identify it as inequality, albeit beneficent, then this disparity amongst people must indeed be a discrimination of sorts. 

Look now to the Social Contract as specified by the Royalty and the Government in terms of what Class Collaboration exactly means. Does that tell you something? In Fascist Italy during WWII, the stated classes were the “Ruling Classes” and the “Others”. Over here, we call it “Bumiputeras” and “Minorities”. 

The Doctrine of Fascism enforces the belief that the existence of different classes of people within a society is wholly beneficial and that each differentiated class possesses their distinct individuality and henceforth stated responsibilities towards the creation of a strong and stable nation. Fascist policies encourage “collaboration” between the classes to unify them through the introduction of legislations protecting the special rights and privileges accorded one class of people, which is denied the rest or otherwise. To discourage any detractors that deem it sacrilegious (as Italy was primarily Roman Catholic), Mussolini had them either incarcerated indefinitely without trial, or executed (without trial). The few that were lucky enough to land in court were punished severely as well. There was actually no escaping the consequences if one was targeted. No wonder the Aussies hated Mussolini’s guts – afterall he did adopt the former’s national animal to name his judiciary. 

Let’s get back to what a Social Contract actually means (as opposed to the one that we know so well). Essentially, a Social Contract is a theoretical concept used in philosophy, political science and sociology to symbolize an unspoken agreement within a state in pertinent to the rights and responsibilities of the state and its populace. The term “social contract” illustrates a broad class of philosophical theories that focuses on the implied agreements by which people form nations and preserves a social order. In laymen's terms, this means that the people voluntarily surrender some rights to a government in exchange for social order. It was however not meant as a “contract” whereby the government allocates special rights and privileges to a “chosen” class of people in exchange for civil rights and social order to the “un-chosen” ones. That is Fascism.  

The social contract is primarily the means toward an end for the benefit of all. What remains unspoken is that it can only remain legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest and approval of the populace. A social contract collapses if and when the promulgators of this policy is voted out of government in an election and the new administration nullifies it. 

What is a contract anyway? It is an agreement by natural law and is presumed valid only if all parties (to the contract) agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, and without coercion. Consent must be given by one party to the other before it can be validated. Additionally, it is non-transferable. Henceforth, a social contract cannot be forced on the descendants of one that has willingly consented to it. Neither are these descendants liable for what their ancestors did. It is called Natural Rights (as opposed to Common Rights). 

The hypothesis whereby citizenship is granted in exchange for special privileges is not official and neither is it relevant. Article 14[1] of the Federal Constitution, by operation of law, already certifies it. How (then) can something that is already guaranteed by law be used as a condition to be bartered for something else? If indeed it is part and parcel of the social contract, why thence was it not documented whereby it can explicitly be exhibited to avoid misinterpretation? 

Let us now assume, for the sake of argument, that it is so. By the allowance of these special privileges, the law will thenceforth create a class of people amongst its populace that is privileged. By using one’s race as the defining factor, it can be construed that an official endorsement of racial delineation is wholly supported and sanctioned. A social contract may provide for special rights and privileges to a certain group of people (of the same race) within a society but it cannot be used by the government to justify racial demarcation and enforced through legislations in a democratic country. That is Racism. 

A social contract can actually be beneficial if its principles are formulated to bring about a fairer society whereby a group of people are given special rights and privileges to “catch up” to the other groups and henceforth create parity amongst all in a society. In stating so, the natural rights and civil liberties accorded the other groups (of people) can never be discriminated upon as each group strives to achieve a collective elitist society as the end product. In fact, it must be specially protected for the social contract to achieve its objectives. Failure to do so ensures an unjust system. 

In conclusion, the continuing existence of a social contract is subjected to acceptance by both parties concerned. Unless the principles base the natural rights of the human being over the civil rights of the citizen, a social contract is perpetually deemed for failure.

Hakim Joe