The bullet achieves what the ballot cannot

By MT Webmaster Last updated Jun 2, 2014

Oh, and by the way, the Thai military is going to meet the Thai King to get His Majesty’s ‘endorsement’, so we are told. Malaysia’s military need not do that because the Agong is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the nine state rulers are the Colonels-in-Chief of the various branches of the military. So in Malaysia it is easier to do than in Thailand.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In 2009, when I first ‘moved’ to the UK, most people I spoke to, even Malaysians living/working here, were of the opinion that the 2010 general election was going to see a hung parliament with the Liberal Democrats most likely winning enough seats to become the ‘kingmaker’. With that prospect in mind, I decided to become a member of Lib Dem — because I just love being in the ‘third force’ and give the two ‘big boys’ a run for their money.

If you can remember, it was not long after that, later in 2010, that I propagated the idea of a third force for Malaysia. I thought, maybe wrongly at that, that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) could be that vehicle to achieve this.

Apparently I was wrong. Friends tell me that MCLM was too early for its time and Malaysians were not yet ready for a third force (at least not yet in 2010). Malaysia was just starting to see a two-party system emerge (the result of the 2008 general election) and many felt that all Malaysia needs is a two-party system to correct whatever may be wrong with Malaysia.

I really do not believe in absolute right and wrong in any situation. History has shown us that what was right at the time of the event can be proven wrong many years later. But then those who study history after the event have the advantage of hindsight and it is so easy to be an expert on hindsight. It is to make a decision with foresight that is what separates the men from the boys.

I came to a conclusion (whether right or wrong conclusion, again, only time can tell) that the mistake MCLM made was that we tried to ‘influence’ the political process. In other words, we tried to ‘embed’ (as the Americans would say) MCLM into Pakatan Rakyat. And this was perceived as MCLM trying to ‘interfere’ with the ‘internal matters’ of Pakatan Rakyat.

Hence MCLM antagonised Pakatan Rakyat who accused the movement of trying to tell the opposition politicians as to what to do and how they should ‘play politics’. Considering that politicians are very jealous of their territory and would protect their turf against what they see as an infringement of territory, I can quite understand their hostile response towards MCLM.

In 2010, when Lib Dem formed a ruling coalition with the Conservatives, many of us were not quite sure whether this was a wise decision. Once Lib Dem became part of the ruling coalition it would lose its independence and would have to ‘toe the party line’. Would this mean that in the next general election in 2015 the voters would reject Lib Dem because it would no longer be seen as the ‘third force’ but as ‘the government’?

Well, last week’s local council elections confirmed what most of us feared. Lib Dem was given a whacking and a new ‘third force’, the UK Independent Party or UKIP, emerged from that election very strong. If what we saw last week is reflective of what we are going to see in May next year, the opposition Labour is going to emerge the winner, the ruling Conservative is going to be sent to the opposition aisle, UK is, again, going to see a hung parliament with no clear victor, Lib Dem is going to be wiped out, and UKIP is going to emerge as the new third force.

Will Labour be able to form the next government? Maybe not, unless they form a coalition government like in 2010. And who is going to be their coalition partner? It certainly won’t be Conservative and if Lib Dem is wiped out and if UKIP does well, as many expect, then it may have to be a Labour-UKIP coalition.

And then the British voters will get upset with Labour-UKIP and, in the next general election in 2020, Conservative will win more seats than Labour and UKIP will be wiped out and probably Lib Dem will come back as the ‘third force’.

In short, no one has absolute and total power in the UK and the British voters decide what happens in the end. And the decision will not be made based on religious or racial considerations or out of ‘party loyalty’ or other sentiments but based on how the government performed in the five years it was in power.

That was what I had hoped to see happen in Malaysia. Alas, it was not to be mainly because Malaysians are still thinking along the lines of black or white, left or right, Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat, and nothing in the middle. Many countries started that way and have since moved beyond that.

Another thing about Malaysia is that Malaysian politics is about winner-takes-all. The winner wins everything and the loser loses everything. Hence those in power would be very scared of losing power because to lose would mean you lose everything. Hence, also, they would need to stay in power come hell or high water. Losing is not an option. And winning must be achieved at all costs even if the end has to justify the means.

The Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 was exactly that. It was winner takes all. Either it is a monarchy or a theocracy. And the monarchy was ousted in favour of a theocracy. Many Iranians now realise that this was a wrong move. However, what can they do about it now? The monarchy is out and the theocracy is in and you cannot change that.

Malaysians, too, some Malays included, talk about removing Malaysia’s monarchy and about turning Malaysia into a republic. Okay, but what type of republic? Iran is a republic, so are many other countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim, that have seen perpetual turmoil resulting in great loss of life.

It is not removing the monarchy and replacing it with a republic that is the key to solving the country’s problem if all you are doing is you are transferring absolute and total power from one group to another group.

Thailand is a monarchy. And Thailand has a sort of two-party system as well. What Thailand does not have is a strong third force that can balance between the two equally strong political forces. Hence Thailand faced a stalemate with no side emerging as a clear winner. And because it does not have a strong third force the military had to come in as that third force.

And this is what will happen to Malaysia as well if one day Malaysia suffers the same fate as Thailand — say in the 14th General Election four years or so from now — and we see a hung parliament with no clear winner.

And say, also, there is no third force in Malaysia like there was in the UK in 2010 and no one can actually form the government, neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat. What will happen then? Who is going to decide who gets to form the government, especially if Malaysians take to the streets and for six months fight it out, like in Thailand?

Well, I suppose then the military would have to come in and be that third force and decide what happens to Malaysia. Can you see any other alternative? And in 2018, eight years after MCLM first mooted the idea of a third force, Malaysians will say, “Shit, he was right!”

But then the Malaysian rulers are merely constitutional monarchs and have no political power, many of you will scream. Oh yeah! Think again. The monarchy can become Malaysia’s ‘third force’ if it wishes to play that role of third force. And if Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat trigger turmoil in the 14th General Election in 2018, the military, with the backing of the Rulers, would have no choice but to restore order, just like in Thailand.

And that will be when you wish you had movements like the MCLM to fight for your civil liberties on a non-partisan platform in a country under martial law where Parliament and the Constitution have been suspended. But then I will be in Manchester rubbing it in and writing a series of ‘I told you so’ articles.

Interesting, is it not?

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK