Too many parties, too few leaders

What we need is fewer politicians fighting for themselves and more leaders fighting for the people.

Based on reports so far, the US’ Tea Party has no aspirations of becoming a third party or a formal political institution. Its members seek to influence existing parties and they seem more concerned with principles rather than policy prescriptions.

By M. VEERA PANDIYAN, The Star

So, is this going to be yet another case of let’s party again?

The PKR has accused renegade leader Datuk Zaid Ibrahim of having set up a new party and already controlling it through proxies.

Its secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution claimed that Zaid had put his close friends among the new leadership of the party a few months ago.

The former Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department has responded by daring Saifuddin to name the new party that he was supposed to have formed along with his so-called proxies.

Zaid, a veteran lawyer who joined the PKR in June 2009 after falling out with Umno, has been accused of being a Trojan horse, although a battering ram may be a better description of his recent actions.

The PKR’s party pooper wants to quit to disso ciate himself from “liars and cheats”.

His announcement came after he dramatically withdrew from the party’s deputy presidential race in protest against “fraud and manipulation” in the ongoing elections.

He has also publicly demanded that the PKR’s Ketua Umum (General Leader or Leader General?) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his blue-eyed deputy president candidate Azmin Ali step down, claiming they are barriers to the reform agenda.

Zaid is expected to tell all about his decision tomorrow. We wait with not-so-bated breath as the drama goes on.

But if he hasn’t set up one, like Saifuddin says, but is planning to do so and is looking for a suitable name, can I offer one?

It’s not very original but given our penchant to copy all things Western, or more specifically American, how about the Teh Tarik Party ala the US’ Tea Party?

Translated into Malay it would be Parti Teh Tarik or PTT in short, which has got a nice ring to it.

As we know, the Tea Party movement in the US began in a wave of anger over government bailouts of collapsed banks, insurance firms and car companies following the economic meltdown of 2008.

It provided the fervour and excitement that enabled the Republicans to win a majority in the House of Representatives in the Nov 2 mid-term polls.

The movement’s name is taken from the “no taxation without representation” protests of early Americans in 1773 who threw tea from the British colonial government into the sea at Boston harbour.

Based on reports so far, the US’ Tea Party has no aspirations of becoming a third party or a formal political institution. Its members seek to influence existing parties and they seem more concerned with principles rather than policy prescriptions.

Its members, who have been accused of racism and xenophobia, are mostly white, older than 45 and generally believe that President Barack Obama’s policies are “socialist” and “un-American” in nature.

But enough of the Americans. Let’s get back to the proposed PTT.

Basically, the ideology can be built around what the people want and Zaid, or whoever is keen to set it up, just needs to listen to the usual conversations of Malaysians as they sip their teh tarik daily.

It must revolve around justice and fairness, eradication of corruption, rejection of religious and racist extremism, good governance, affordable quality education, lower crime and political leadership by example.

Yes, you’ve heard it all before. But if these can’t be delivered, we might as well start setting up parties just for the heck of it.

Throughout the world there are such parties that poke fun at the hypocrisy in politics, using their own silly policies and insane promises.

There’s a Beer Lovers Party of Russia, registered in 1994, which at its height, had branches in 60 regions of Russia. It was deregistered four years later but apparently branches continue to exist as formal and informal associations.

Canada’s Rhinoceros Party was a registered political entity between the 1960s and the 1990s. Operating within the tradition of political satire, its credo was “a promise to keep none of our promises”.

It picked the rhino as the symbol because politicians, by nature, are “thick-skinned, slow-moving, dim-witted but can move as fast as hell when in danger, and have large, hairy horns growing out of the middle of their faces”.

There is also a Donald Duck Party in Sweden that gets votes without really existing. For a long time, it was unregistered and had neither leaders nor members, until Bosse Person officially registered it, and remains its only member.

So, in addition to the several mosquito parties that we already have, perhaps someone should set up a Parti Monyet Malaysia or a Parti Buaya Malaysia in similar spirit.

At the least, we can have a bit of fun instead of becoming blinded and gullible partisan supporters of parties that are increasingly looking like burlesque sideshows, as their leaders jostle for power.

But the serious message in all this is we don’t really need more political parties. What we need – and have always needed – is fewer politicians fighting for themselves and more leaders fighting for the people.

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes this quote by Plato: Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being ruled by those who are dumber.