Yes, We Need a 2 Party System

By batsman

Before I venture into this dark and confusing topic, allow me please to try and unravel first the basics of what we are for this determines what we need. Without understanding what we are, trying to determine what we need is an exercise in willfulness and oppressive ambition – much like plans to build a show case and boastful 100 storey building which most probably will have one’s name engraved in stone or steel in it somewhere to remind future generations who built such and such a building. Such ambitions remind one of the ambitions of the Pharaohs of ancient Eqypt – wasteful and boastful Firaun who think nothing of exterminating others to achieve what they want.

Yet the Firaun too have their supporters and slave handlers who profit from his ambition and greed as well as masses of hapless peasants who wish only to live in security and peace but are taxed into poverty and slavery to support the wealthy and their lifestyles. We need to know what we are and whether we can (or wish to) support the lifestyles and needs of present day Firauns and their supporters.

Man is both an individual and a social animal. This fact alone casts him into perpetual conflict with himself at the same time creates massive and often violent social movements as well as lifestyles and cultures that try to cater to one side or the other of his conflicting nature.

Taming this conflict therefore makes sense for the wellbeing of man. Unfortunately circumstances change and any equilibrium that is struck must also change. This is further complicated in that one individual’s circumstances is likely never the same as another’s. So it is that there is a need to cater to individual changes as well as changes that affect the whole of society. The 2 are inter-related and cannot be separated for any great length of time.

This conflict is natural. It is life itself. Man’s struggle with himself is perpetual and ongoing. We can only hope to reduce such conflict for the good of the many without undue waste or creating situations that portend even greater conflict and misery in the future, never eliminate it altogether.

Life must be a reflection of nature and in nature, the laws of physics imply that there must be a struggle whereby any force is counter-balanced by an opposite force even if just the force of friction or air resistance (unless of course one lives in outer space or thinks one is like some people we know).

In many cases, to achieve his will, man applies a force greater than the force of resistance, but even then such actions consumes energy and time and eventually these will be expended too. Here the laws of thermodynamics come into play and energy will always be eventually dissipated into a final form which cannot be re-used again.

So it makes sense for man to use his energies and time well in the most effective and efficient manner. This means he has to try and limit wasted energy and time spent in silly quarrels and destructive anti-social personal ambitions. This further means he has to find an optimum balance between his personal self-gratification and individuality against his need for community, society, nation and faith. This again means that there must be discipline to counter-balance unbridled ambition (such as building 100 storey buildings like the firaun did or forcing others to hear lousy singing like their wives did).

In the sphere of national social relations and politics, a one way street occurs only in war and emergencies. In peacetime, there must be a balance (a 2 way street). So it is in war, an authoritative war leader is needed while in peacetime, a democratic system is most suited and in a democratic system all groupings must be given room to express their most constructive and productive roles not suppressed and not discriminated against for such suppression will only give rise to wasteful quarrels and distractions from being the best one can be. Needless to say, this is not an argument to support those groupings which are perverts, sex maniacs, alcohol and drug abusers, corrupt, sinful and violent gangs – whether legal, para-legal or illegal to do their stuff.

So I would like to argue for a healthy 2-party political system within a healthy democratic process to be established in our country. We do not need a1 way street in a 1 way government in a 1 way Malaysia to force people to comply with the wishes of a few wealthy and corrupt firauns and their sinful and abusive way of life.

We are not a homogeneous society like Japan or Korea. In fact we boast about our multi-ethnicity loudly to the whole world to attract tourists, but when it comes to policy, we take one way streets, forcing people to use one language with one version of history and one dominant culture barely tolerant of others and one hadhari religion barely recognizing the rights of others. So where does multi-ethnicity and multi-religion stand in 1 Malaysia? Does anyone have to give up anything to achieve 1 Malaysia? Obviously something has to give since we have to spend hundreds of millions in advertising to promote 1 Malaysia. Why waste all these millions if no one has to give up anything?

So it looks like we are on our way to be 1 dictatorship with no room for variety and not celebrating our variedness. This of course gives rise to resistance as is the way of nature. Waste and quarrels seem to be obstacles to being the best we can be. Wasteful spending on 1 Malaysia is a recognition that we all have varied needs and hopes, but these need to be suppress to meet the needs of 1 Malaysia. It is as if we are in war time and we need to enforce discipline, but who are we at war with? Are we at war with ourselves by any chance? Why create this feeling we are under threat and our security is at stake? Who is threatening us?

Unfortunately this feeling that we are at war with someone has also seeped into the attitudes of those who wish to see a healthy 2 party political system in Malaysia. They have become fixated with 2 just as the old system is fixated with 1. But a fixation is a fixation. Eventually a fixation with 2 boils down to a fixation with self and with one.

O.K. so being united and being one is really not such a bad thing. Unfortunately the problem with forcing someone to unite with you when they are not ready sounds almost like rape. So it is that we have to manage our internal conflicts well. It becomes a leadership problem. In this sense, we cannot blame the people if they think the old leadership shows greater ability. This is because the new leadership waiting in the wings hoping that the 13th GE will sweep them into power has based their appeal on hopes only and not a real practical leadership.

Realising that their appeal is sounding a bit hollow, they have become fixated on 2, making 2 their obsession and fanatical right. I think this is a mistake. They should concentrate in getting their act together and present a viable and attractive alternative to the electorate. A 2 party political system is a good idea, but it becomes self-indulgent and obsessive especially for the 2nd party if it pushes this fiercely as if this 2nd place is their own special personal plot under the sun.

Just as the old becoming fixated on 1 is a bad mistake, the new becoming fixated on 2 is also going to prove to be a mistake. This is where independent NGOs such as the MCLM must prove their worth in showing that political parties do not own Malaysia. Malaysia belongs to the rakyat and they will choose who they think is the best leader to lead them.

Democracy cannot work well with just political parties taking the lead. The people must have alternative avenues to fight independently for their rights and while it makes good sense to have just 2 political parties which try their best to represent the will of the majority (not just the will of skin colour or religious affiliation, but the will of intellect and intelligent decision in deciding where Malaysia should be heading), we also need independent NGOs which are capable to correcting these political parties (and hence politicians and their backers) from trying to own and abuse the country.

What of the argument that says we need to establish a 2 party system first before we can create the “other NGOs” that will make it possible for a healthy democratic system to flourish? I must admit this is a good argument. However as with most things, it is dependent on circumstances.

Having a 2 party system if the 2nd party has absorbed the attitudes and thinking of the old system will just land us in a morass of excuses why this or that is not working as planned or as promised. The point of having a 2 party system is that bad laws will be repealed and conditions created for free speech and free association to form independent NGOs. This is not going to happened if the 2nd political party has absorbed the habits of the old, and all we are going to have are excuses after excuses while repression and corruption continues to take its toll.

A 2 party political system is supposed to force the bureaucracy to be neutral in a party political sense. Hence it will become difficult for RTM (for example) to be biased in their reporting - difficult but not impossible. In fact a situation may arise where bureaucrats become absolutely corrupt and absolutely abusive in the time they have to keep their favourite political party in power as long as they can and only quit the country when the other party comes to power. We are already seeing shadows of such attitudes. A political leadership who refuses to admit their subordinates have screwed up or are dishonest only adds support to such a rotten bureaucratic system. This will turn Malaysia into a banana country – stiff in appearance, but really soft in the core.

If we want a country that is hard core competitive and efficient, we need a bureaucracy that serves the people and the nation, not the political parties in power. Independent NGOs serve this function of acting as checks and balances on the bureaucracy in a direct manner while political parties serve as checks and balances on the power of political parties and only indirectly on the bureaucracy.

An NGO such as one dedicated to civil liberties will act as a direct check on public servants within the police, the judiciary, the EC and the MACC in an eye-ball to eye-ball manner. We really need such NGOs too.

I happen to believe that only when the base is healthy can we have a healthy political system too. So what would you prefer as a method of solving Malaysia’s woes – bottom up approach or top down approach? Take you choice so long as it is not coming from outer space or everything OK. heeheehee