Sivarasa’ s Letter
Is the party’s organisation sophisticated enough and well designed enough to allow for differences of opinion as well as campaigning for pet issues of personalities without fracturing it apart?
by batsman
Democracy is not easy to achieve. After over 50 years of UMNO rule, we are still struggling to get rid of a vile and perverted version. But this should not surprise anyone except the uninformed.
England took over a century to perfect hers. Even after Parliament chopped off the head of the English king (Charles I) during the English Civil War, it could not rule effectively and needed a Lord Protector (Cromwell) and when the Lord Protector died, Parliament had to beg another English king (Charles II) to come back to rule.
And even then, disagreements between the king and Parliament triggered a “Glorious Revolution” decades later when Parliament had to beg a Dutchman (William of Orange) to land with an army and depose the then ruling English monarch (James II).
Even then, representation in Parliament was the reserve of the gentry and the wealthy and the common people were not given the vote until a century later. Even then women were excluded and not given the franchise until about another 50 years later. Even then it still cannot get rid of inherited centuries old laws such as banning Catholics from the throne.
How would a political party handle democracy within its own ranks when its platform is to bring in justice as well as better and healthier democracy for the whole country? Is this an irresolvable contradiction?
A party is like an army. It is the spearhead of reforms and revolutions. Total democracy in such an institution is not practical as it must rely on discipline, organisation and focus. However without some form of internal democracy the political party becomes more like a rude and brutal army than a political party of intelligent and creative activists.
This is where organization comes in. Is the party’s organisation sophisticated enough and well designed enough to allow for differences of opinion as well as campaigning for pet issues of personalities without fracturing it apart? Does it have the communications tools for such opinions to spread efficiently within the party but stops at the boundaries of the party and prevents outsiders from spying on the party, gaining access to all its weaknesses and knowing it inside out?
Does Zaid have the means to spread his opinions effectively within the party without hindrance? If not he may have a case to spread them publicly since PKR is a reformist party that appeals to the public for support. Are such opinions and actions helping to overcome weaknesses and make the party stronger or taking advantage of weaknesses to hurt the party?
On the other hand, if Sivarasa replies to Zaid’s statements publicly, is he then agreeing to bring these issues to the open and debate them in public? Will such actions compromise party discipline and threaten its unity and make it less effective as a spearhead of reform?
Or will it bring greater transparency and greater trust among the public for PKR’s struggle and greater empathy for the problems it faces?
I suppose it depends on how the public controversy is handled. If it were filled with bile and vindictiveness with words such a “traitor” bandied about, the effects on both the party and the public will probably be negative, but if the debate is conducted with greater civility and sportsmanship, I suppose there is a chance that the effects will be positive.
Zaid says PKR is a 1 issue party. Sivarasa says it is not. Looks like the public will have to judge the truth for itself. However, for the party to gain some advantage and benefits from this controversy, I hope the controversy will be polite, civil and sportsmanlike.
