The Malaysian Dilemma (Part II): God Never Played Dice
Democracy began as a form of socialism.
Raggie Jessy
Assume that I gave you a coin. You flip it, and found it to land on the floor, head upwards. Now, assume that it was the first time you’d seen or handled a coin. To you, a coin is something, that when flipped, lands with the head facing upwards. You’d say this with conviction, because your little experiment told you so. Any deduction beyond the confines of your experimental result is an assumption.
Now, keep flipping the same coin a thousand times. You’ll find it impossible to get the head up all of the time. But you’ll find the chances of getting a head or a tail up to a flip to be even. That is to say, you’ll find the head up almost half of the time, as you will the tail. This no longer is an assumption, but an observation.
And you deduce that the chances of getting the head or tail facing upward are even, with the outcome to a flip, random. Now, that is a valid deduction. But if you were to flip the coin a million times over the span of years, you would find the chances of getting heads or tails to a flip to be the same. You’d then conclude, that the chances of getting heads or tails to a flip to be something regular. And yet again, you’d have made a valid deduction.
Thus, regularity and randomness is a matter of perception. In part 1 to the Malaysian Dilemma, I spoke of randomness as a precept to causality. Every choice you make leads to a succession of events that sprouts up inordinate possibilities, all random. And in the randomness of it all, you’ll find regularity. And you’ll find regularity, because god never plays dice with humans.
God never plays dice. At least, I never knew of circumstances that could validate such a stance. Palpable or indiscernible, every manifestation has a certain degree of regularity to it. This is a truth obscured only by paradigms of your associations. That’s how I see things.
It wasn’t too long ago that I spoke of tyrants and capitalists, key players to economics of the elitist. We were on democracy, a simple, easy euphemism that obscures the perils to a form of ignorance that may well usurp your rights in manners you have yet to perceive.
And that’s precisely why I’m here; I want to show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. I want to show you both sides to a coin, rather than presenting to you a coin. I want to, because it pays to explore the coin, as opposed to blindly taking for gospel bureaucratic expositions of a coin hook, line and sinker.
By the same token, economic elitism, as gross as you perceive it to be, may be the order of evolution within democracies. Once established, it reduces you to a constituent element within a faceless majority. Minority or majority, your political avoirdupois is a matter of perception. Step out of the box, and you’ll see the regularity to politics of associations beyond Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.
So let’s just say, for now, that it doesn’t matter if you’re part of a majority or a minority class, race or sect. You may as well regard yourself as the destitute minority submissive to an ineluctable evolutionary rite, one you can’t dismiss.
1. The Advent of Democracy
Democracy can be the next best thing since Adam or the worst of anomalies since Rafizi explained Kajang, depending on your slant. It’s an oxymoron in itself, the mother of all anomalies. And the anomaly began in Athens, 510 BC.
Back then, Athenian governments were run by hereditary ruling classes that were affluent and repressive. They comprised of aristocrats, who were but a little more than patrons of the luxuriant and preponderant nobles. And such was the order of things before the rise of Cleisthenes, who arguably, is the father of democracy.
Cleisthenes hailed from an era elucidated by Aristocratic tyrants, with the impoverished commoner shackled by debt slavery, a variant to indentured labour. His bumpy ride towards state leadership precipitated off a people’s will against Aristocratic tyranny.
Cleisthenes ushered in politics of representation by getting a people cognizant of their rights and liberties. In essence, Cleisthenes sought to emancipate a people from the ordinance of wealthy elitists who conformed to submissive dictums and dogmas.
The order of aristocracy soon crumbled by the avoirdupois of the superstructure it delineated. Cleisthenes sprang up at a time these structures had grown out of sync with a people. The vast majority of indentured and impoverished labourers sought emancipation on their own terms, preferring to steer Athens in retribution and towards salvation.
Once in command, Cleisthenes put an end to Aristocratic tyranny. Politics no longer represented an aristocratic order, but the will of a majority through regulated representation, with the rights and privileges of the minority intact.
But Athenian economy was far from being market driven. The state, wielding absolute political and economic power, manipulated market circumstances to empower the labour class, the electoral majority. In theory, Athens charted its maiden voyage towards nation building through a form of economic socialism, which gradually paved the way for democratic liberalism.
And the lesson is learnt; democracy began as a form of socialism.
2. The Spawn of Economic Elitists
The Malaysian majority, as with majorities in most parts of the world, comprise lower and middle-income segments to society. They constitute a people’s will expressed through representation, regulated via ballot boxes and the Federal Constitution, which reigns supreme. Contending factions correspond to sectarian clusters assorted by race, religion and political predilection.
Now, pre-independence Malaya was more an Aristocracy of a class militarily superior to the local Monarchs. And I’m referring to the British; their alluring sophistication ranked notches above the Rulers, as far as paradigms of associations went back then. And in a hereditary sense; they were never the endemic, but rather, the pervasive. As I see it, they were the de-facto Aristocrats within a pre-independence era.
And they divided and ruled while ushering in a variant to Athenian debt slavery.
At the time, Indian migration was perceived merely as a movement of indentured labour from one colonial territory to another. Indentured labour was in all but name, debt slavery. Indians lived deplorably, sweating blood in estates of the Chinese landlords. Following independence, a new bloc of sectarian confederacies redefined constitutions to governance, advocating democracy with a conviction to recalibrate the economic quotient. By then, the lower income bracket composed of the Indians and Malays, while the opulent Chinese gazed over picket fences with wooden smiles, taking no notice of the socio-economic disparity.
The government of the day institutionalized economy in a manner that sought to empower deficient classes in leveling the playing field. Or so was the ambition. Regardless, a regulated economy with tariffs and manipulation of prices and partake, however noble the intent, conforms to an order of socialism. And so was the order of politics back in the day.
Thus, barely had the dust settled on colonialism, Malaya’s socio-economic landscape was delineated by two distinct clusters; the Socialists, who depended on government assistance in making ends meet, and the Liberalists, who shaped townships and governmental policies as a matter of a precept to economics of merit. And the Malays conformed to a Socialist order.
The wind soon got up the Chinese. They preferred a market driven economy free from tariffs and warped manipulation, seeking to impede state regulatory frameworks they perceived as impinging on their rights to proliferation. Kit Siang rose to the occasion, aggravating circumstances by instilling a sense of economic disparity. He had the Chinese on racial and religious overtones, estranging them from UMNO and the Malays. In theory, Kit Siang separated the Socialist from the Communal Liberalist.
Tun Razak went on to subdue antagonism within a commonality of disgruntled Malays and Chinese, by ushering in the New Economic Policy (NEP). Mahathir, on the other hand, strived to empower Malays through entrepreneurship. But the advent of ‘Ali Baba’ fronts reduced the Malay enterprise to a farce, with the Chinese sweeping up stakes under the counter. The Malays had grown lazy. Their lackadaisical attitude was remnant of a pre-independence era, where Malay farmers were landlords in their own right and reckoned adequate.
Regardless, Mahathir juggled pecuniary circumstances in ways that would have awed the likes of Adam Smith. He kept Malays cosy while draping the Chinese with fabric woven from the very spindles he pegged IMF’s radars with. But the Chinese preferred to build tents, and feverishly tugged on these spindles while selling even the Malays, on credit. The Chinese had evolved, and were now a variant to Communist-Liberalists.
Be that as it may, it was Mahathir’s fiscal dexterity that got the Chinese and the Malays to meet halfway. His policies spawned a dominant middle income segment that devoured an impressive wedge from the economic pie. But the biggest frog in the puddle was ultimately, your elected representative.
That’s right. Government policies benefited your average incumbent, perhaps more than it did a people. Elitist groups began training camp followers in the art of political immortality, conforming to an Aristocracy of sorts. And over time, the form of governance advocated by these groups grew out of sync with a people.
You see, Aristocracy conforms to a group or class superior to others, just as the British were to the Malays. Archaic government superstructures serve to preserve outmoded attitudes that seemingly perpetuate a manner of command, which in turn, sustains these structures. To all intents and purposes, it is the perpetuation of such a command that gives rise to a new order of Aristocracy.
Minority elitists spawn off politics of representation, these groups would swear on a stack of Bibles that the sky was nothing but a figment of your imagination. Basically, they’re the very reason why Kit Siang and Anwar Ibrahim get away with murder in broad daylight. They are the Capitalist-Tyrants.
A minority spawn of a majority; your elected representatives, the voice of a majority, are anything but a representation of your will. They’re the breed that could cough up a riposte with every rhapsody gone wrong. Heck, they’re capable of selling refrigerators even to the Eskimos. In essence, they’d tell you that sugar subsidy needs revoking to keep in check the prevalence of diabetes in Malaysia. And there was a time that you’d have believed them. But that time is long gone.
And that’s precisely why you, being part to a majority, may regard yourself as the destitute minority. It’s an evolutionary rite endemic to democracies, one you can’t ignore. And it’s the rite of passage that gave rise to Capitalist-Tyranny, Communist-Liberalism and Socialism.
God never played dice with us.
3. The Rise of Socialism within a Democracy
The burgeoning middle class may as well be deemed a minority accommodation. Like I said, it doesn’t matter if you’re part to a majority or a minority class, race or sect. You may as well regard yourself as the destitute minority. Perchance, you’ll now appreciate the merits to the stance.
All said and done, democracy failed us, because democracy gave rise to a form of tyranny by social capitalists who conform to an order of Aristocracy. And we’re back to Athens, 510 BC, where the birth of democracy was preceded by a group of non-conformists who sought to tip the Aristocrats over and re-apportion wealth in a manner of retribution.
Now, this isn’t far off the charts where Malaysia is concerned. It may come by as a surprise to you, but democratic socialism was well and alive in pre-independence Malaya. The movement, solemnized through the establishment of Parti Ra’ayat in 1955, was a Malay leftist concern founded by Ahmad Boestamam and revolved around the poor and oppressed.
Parti Ra’ayat went on to form a coalition with Ishak Hj Muhammad’s Labour Party of Malaya. The coalition came to be known as the Socialist Front, which ruffled some feathers in the 1959 General Elections when it garnered a sizeable faction of ballots to its favour, ranking just below the Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (now PAS). In theory, the Pan Malaysian Islamic Party was deemed a radical variant to the much subdued and moderate Socialist Front, which resonated well with non-Muslim segments.
The Socialist Front collapsed following the political incarceration of its leaders, giving rise to an order of Scientific Socialism. A variant to Karl Marx’s precepts on society and economy, Scientific Socialism centres on methodological and realistic instrumentation in predicting future outcomes and developments. Such were the canons to Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM), which made its debut in the 1990 General Elections. But it wasn’t until 1998 that PRM began to hit its stride with the expansion of its support base.
Anwar’s incarceration breathed new life into moderate leftism. Perchance, it was Hindraf that sent shivers down the spines of Barisan Nasional’s complacent aristocrats when they accused the government of marginalizing the impoverished Indian labourer. Now, such a stance, particularly when shored up on nationalistic scales, strikes a chord or two with moderates, who were then in the mood to throw down the gauntlet to Barisan Nasional.
It becomes apparent why Socialism is the order of nature insofar as Aristocracies are concerned. That is to say, aristocracies pillared on tyranny or variants thereof invariably catalyze socialist movements by moderates.
4. Why this Matters to PKR and Barisan Nasional
Both the PKR and DAP never really sanctioned PAS’s theological doctrines at any point since 1998. PAS was always the anomaly, which explains why Pakatan Rakyat is yet to be registered with the Registrar of Societies (RoS). But PAS was a necessary anomaly, one roped into the coalition to represent leftist attitudes by low and middle-income classes of dissidents who preferred UMNO struck off political equations. All in all, PAS was nothing more than a radical Islamist variant to a group of Socialists.
With Reformasi, Anwar subtly importuned a conspicuous segment to these classes for support, amassing an all encompassing patronage from moderate Malays to hardliner Islamists. Although PAS appealed to Islamist reformers, it was Kit Siang who inveigled a Chinese pass towards obliterating UMNO and the Social Contract.
The unheralded coming of PRM (Parti Rakyat Malaysia) was augmented by the Hindraf and Reformasi movements, which inadvertently drew in leftist moderates by the busloads, without them (PRM) having to do anything. In theory, PRM assuaged the chronic insecurity manifest among a people by laying out an alternative to PAS and DAP, which were perceived as radical racialists.
Thus, PRM became that other anomaly Anwar sought to swallow up whole in keeping check PAS’s dominion of influence. This is precisely why the two parties merged in 2003, giving rise to Parti Keadilan Rakyat, which to me is nothing more than a commutation of names.
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (or PSM) is a socialist front cut from the same cloth as PRM, never dull of patronage. Its consolidation under the RoS in 2008 followed a legal tussle with the government over its legitimacy. That is to say, PSM sought to uphold tenets to the Federal Constitution which guarantees the right to form a political party, denied to them by the Home Minister.
The Federal Government perceived PSM to be a threat to national security, which to me, is quite the load of bunkum and something I could never pin my faith on. Like I’ve said, democracy gives rise to a form of tyranny by social capitalists who conform to an order of Aristocracy. And just as with Athens, aristocracies pillared on tyranny or variants thereof invariably catalyze socialist movements by leftists.
With the legalization of PSM, the die was invariably cast. Not by god, but by man.
5. The Many Hands that Cast the Die
On November 5, 2014, Rafizi uttered a lie, possibly the mother of all told since Azizah declared a legion to her favour in Selangor. According to him, PSM was ‘allowed’ to contest PKR designated seats during GE13 under the PKR banner.
The truth is, PSM was never ‘allowed’ to borrow PKR’s logo during GE13; PSM was forced to use the PKR logo during GE13.
PSM was forced to use PKR’s logo, because PKR sought to keep in check PAS’s dominion of influence within the confines of Selangor. In theory, PKR sought to run rings around PAS in dictating the state’s legislative composition, and particularly, the rank of Menteri Besar. They feared PAS, because PAS was a radical leftist group, the inevitable result of a democratic rite of passage.
PKR resorted to such measures, because PSM was a third force capable of winning over Malay leftists within the Selangor political quotient, particularly those preferring a moderate platform of expression. They may not have emerged victorious, but would surely have split votes within constituencies they contested, delivering virtual walkovers to Barisan Nasional.
This is precisely why PSM’s Dr. Nasir was cornered into contesting the Kota Damansara seat using PKR’s logo. His candidacy sent shivers up Hadi’s spine, resulting in the eleventh hour nomination of Ridzuan Ismail, who contested under PAS’s banner. Ironically, Dr. Nasir had only received his appointment letter from PKR a day before nominations, which puts to perspective how PKR has its heart in its mouth over PAS.
Dr. Nasir was likely coerced into compliance by Azmin Ali, who seemed to endorse a lawyer aligned to PKR for the seat, probably as his trump card. That is to say, Azmin may have intimidated Dr. Nasir into using PKR’s logo in Kota Damansara, because he, like the rest of PKR, found socialist circles to be a potent third force capable of upstaging Pakatan Rakyat.
When PSM decided for the use of its own logo in Sememnyih, Azmin Ali went ahead and fielded Hamidi Hassan against PSM’s Arutchelvan and Barisan Nasional’s Johan Abd. Aziz. It was Azmin’s way of denying PSM a rather assured victory by confusing the electorate, who by then were convinced of cloak-and-dagger pursuits by a PKR-PSM collusion. And PKR was willing to do this at the expense of a victory.
PSM’s persistence and perseverance is something that makes Anwar’s hair stand on the end and Barisan to shake in its shoes. It does, because it was precipitated off a regularity that circumscribes a rite of passage, one endemic to an infant democracy.
God never played dice with us. Our politicians did.
