Democracy is not compatible with justice

You need to win the majority of the seats. You need to make sure that your seats are spread out and not concentrated only in certain areas. At the end of the day, if you are clever, you can form the government with just 45% of the votes while the other side needs to win 60% of the votes to form the government.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Since 1998, when the Reformasi movement first exploded onto the Malaysian scene, Malaysians have been demanding more democracy, better transparency and good governance, electoral reforms, more civil liberties, freedom of choice, freedom of information, independence of the judiciary, etcetera.

In 2018 Malaysia will be facing yet another general election (the fifth since 1998), 20 years after the birth of the Reformasi movement in 1998 and ten years after the 2008 ‘Tsunami’.

Has anything changed much over those last two decades?

The whole problem is, we believe that the system works so we are focused on trying to improve or reform the system. We believe that the system is being abused, so we are trying to stop the abuse of the system. We refuse to acknowledge that in the first place the system itself may be bad. Hence nothing we do can change things.

This was what the Boston Globe reported on 24th June 2016:

Britain’s democratic failure

THE REAL LUNACY of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70 percent, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36 percent of eligible voters backing it.

This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of enormous consequence — far greater even than amending a country’s constitution (of course, the United Kingdom lacks a written one) — has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard. In the Spartan assemblies of ancient Greece, votes were cast by acclamation. People could modulate their voice to reflect the intensity of their preferences, with a presiding officer carefully listening and then declaring the outcome. It was imperfect, but maybe better than what just happened in the UK.

By some accounts, Sparta’s sister state, Athens, had implemented the purest historical example of democracy. All classes were given equal votes (albeit only males). Ultimately, though, after some catastrophic war decisions, Athenians saw a need to give more power to independent bodies. (READ MORE HERE)

I have said this before, many times, in fact. Democracy is merely the tyranny of the majority. And in most case the majority actually means the minority but the system allows the minority to become the majority.

In 2013, Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat said that Najib Tun Razak is not the legitimate Prime Minister because he won the general election with less than 50% of the popular votes. In other words, what Anwar and Pakatan are saying is that to become the Prime Minister you need to win no less than 51% of the votes.

That is not true. That’s a lie. The Prime Minister is appointed, not elected, like in the US Presidential election. And he is appointed from the party that won the most number of seats in Parliament. And in this case the party that won the most number of seats in Parliament in 2013 was Barisan Nasional.

His Majesty the Agong then swears in a Member of the House (meaning one of the 222 Members of Parliament) as the Prime Minister who in His Majesty’s opinion commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House.

Note this very important part of the Constitution that says: who in His Majesty’s opinion commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House.

And that is how the Prime Minister is appointed. And it is the Agong who does that. And the Agong draws upon His Majesty’s opinion on that person who commands the confidence of the majority of the House. And that opinion is based on the leader of the party that won the most number of seats, never mind how many votes they won.

And do you want to know what adds insult to injury? Barisan Nasional won votes from just 17% of Malaysians while the opposition won slightly more than that (1.5% more). In other words, it does not matter which of the two parties actually gets to form the government. Both sides received votes from less than 20% of 30 million Malaysians (two-thirds of Malaysians who are eligible to vote and one-third not yet).

So, is that British Westminster system which Malaysia is using the best system? Many do not think so and they feel that the outcome of Brexit last month was due to that not perfect system. If they had used the general election first-past-the-post system to decide on Brexit then most likely the result would have been different. Instead they used the ‘much fairer’ Referendum system and it caused even more problems.

Malaysians talk about whether Malaysia is a Secular State or not. They say it is implied in the Constitution (that Malaysia is a Secular State). But then they are wrong — it is not implied in the Constitution. Many are imagining that. In fact, it may even be implied that Malaysia is an Islamic State because (1) it never specifies that Malaysia is a Secular State plus (2) it states that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

So we now argue about the Syariah and the amendments to the Syariah Bill. Some even say that the amendments are implying that Malaysia is implementing Hudud. So much implying everywhere with no one specifying what it actually is.

So how do we resolve this? Some say we should hold a Referendum to decide whether Malaysians want Malaysia to be a Secular State or a Theocratic State and whether Malaysians want Islamic laws, be it the Syariah or Hudud or whatever.

The trouble is many people think that those who do not want Malaysia to be a Secular State and who want Syariah laws are the minority and if a Referendum is held the majority will vote in favour of a Secular State and against Islamic laws.

Are you sure? They thought so, too, when they did the Brexit Referendum and were shocked by the outcome. What if the Referendum shows the majority is in favour of Islam rather than Secularism?

And most important of all, less than 50% of Malaysians would be voting and that means less than 50% of Malaysians are going to decide on behalf of 100% or 30 million Malaysians. And the side that wins would be winning with only 20% of the votes. And you are telling me that this is democracy, justice, fair, and so on?

Less than 25% of Britons voted to leave the EU. Less than 20% of Malaysians will be deciding if they want Islam or Secularism. And then when you get the result you do not like you will scream and say that the voting is unfair.

Of course it is unfair. If the system were good and fair they would have banned it a long time ago. The fact that the system is still being used means that it is unfair and can be manipulated. And then you say we need to reform the system. How to reform something that the very concept does not offer you justice and fair play?

So, what do you do? Simple! I have said this many times before but you are not paying attention. You need to win the majority of the seats. You need to make sure that your seats are spread out and not concentrated only in certain areas. At the end of the day, if you are clever, you can form the government with just 45% of the votes while the other side needs to win 60% of the votes to form the government.

And this is why Barisan Nasional will keep winning while the opposition will keep losing.