It’s democracy, stupid

It has been mentioned that PR has so many candidates, it should think about implementing the one candidate, one seat policy. When I was in the Selangor DAP committee in 1990-95, we were already implementing this policy, much to the chagrin of the power elite at the centre of the DAP. At the time, they had insisted that a part-time member of parliament who kept two medical practices was indispensable in the state as well. 

Dr Kua Kia Soong, The Sun Daily 

KARPAL Singh, chairman of the DAP, must be commended for his recent call to Pakatan Rakyat to practise a “one candidate, one seat” policy. At last, someone has spoken up against this undemocratic practice of party elite monopolising federal and state seats.

When I criticised this practice a few years ago, “seat grabbers” tried to justify the practice by saying they could handle both federal and state constituencies: “All you need to do is employ more secretaries to look after the seats for you, what,” was their reply.

“Seat grabbing” in both federal and state constituencies in general elections suggests that the politicians involved are brilliant multi-taskers and that there are too few appropriate candidates within their parties to do otherwise. Democracy is about people participation and that means creating opportunities for more, not fewer, people to engage in the democratic process of government. Are these politicians actively seeking out and nurturing potential candidates within their party?

Barisan Nasional does not practise “seat grabbing” – not because they are democrats, but because they have too many parties between which to divide the spoils. Furthermore, they go for bigger economic stakes.

It has been mentioned that PR has so many candidates, it should think about implementing the one candidate, one seat policy. When I was in the Selangor DAP committee in 1990-95, we were already implementing this policy, much to the chagrin of the power elite at the centre of the DAP. At the time, they had insisted that a part-time member of parliament who kept two medical practices was indispensable in the state as well.

There are other reforms that have not been implemented within PR including limiting the term of office of a party leader, something that has been achieved by even the retrogressive MCA. Has the feudal “dear leader” syndrome any place in a democracy?

Why do you think this practice of grabbing seats in both federal and state parliaments is not practised in other democratic countries? Do you think it is because they cannot afford to employ political secretaries to look after their constituencies?

It’s democracy, stupid! To do so would be to risk being laughed at by the media and the public for being petty bourgeois careerists.

Democracy is about the inclusion of women and young leaders in the exercise of power and decision-making throughout society. It is not about placing a few token or high-profile women more interested in air-brushing their public image either! The role of female leaders is to push for more extensive models of democracy and participation by women.

Thus, selection procedures within parties must be inclusive and transparent. Structures such as women and youth wings should be empowered to enable them to effectively participate in this selection process. As in the example of the Selangor DAP committee, intra-party democracy and inclusivity must be sustained. This requires that the party have in place structures that will ensure reforms cannot be simply undone.

If PR fails to carry out such intra-party reform, democracy will continue to be cynically interpreted – as my former comrades in the DAP used to joke: “Dia mahu kerusi”.