Let’s face facts (part 5)

Do you think it was Umno that gained independence for Malaya? That is what Umno would like us to believe, of course. It was not Umno. It was the middle class and those with money (Malays, Chinese and Indians), the Malay teachers, the Malay writers, the Malay journalists, and, most important of all, the Malay nobility, that headed the independence movement. Yes, and that is why the first three prime ministers were all ‘orang istana’ (palace people).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Whenever we talk about revolutions, what would normally come to mind would be the French Revolution of 1789 -- and with that we picture the Storming of the Bastille. Most would look at the events of 1789 in a positive light. This is, of course, due to the romantic image that has been created and the impression that this was the beginning of the end for monarchies and of the birth of republics that brought with it liberty/freedom, equality/democracy, and so on.

In reality, the 1789 revolution, the First French Revolution, was a bloody affair. It was a case of the cure being worse than the disease. No doubt, at first, news of the revolution was greeted with excitement all over Europe. But when they began to realise that the revolution was not so much a victory for the people but a defeat for the ‘Old World Order’, the monarchy system that prevailed in Europe at that time, enthusiasm for the revolution began to decline.

The British press, for example, began to publish opinion pieces, cartoons, caricatures, etc., that would create a negative image of the revolution. The revolutionaries were mocked and portrayed as fools and barbarians. Invariably, the revolution, which had initially got off on a good start, met with opposition from almost the whole of Europe.

We must remember that the two biggest landowners at that time were the aristocrats and the clergy. More than 70% of the people were illiterate peasants who worked as serfs on land they did not own. Serfs were no better than slaves. In a way, the crown and the church shared power and monarchs were considered as having been appointed by God and anointed by the church.

By transferring power and ownership of the land to the people, this not only meant a loss for the crown but for all the aristocrats and the church as well. Clergymen, who were almost like second-tier nobility, became ‘common people’ with no power and no property. This frightened the rest of Europe, which basically had the same system as in France, and which they did not wish to see changed.

If I were asked what I would consider as the most significant aspect of the First French Revolution, I would say the Reign of Terror in the aftermath of 1789 and the rise of a ‘common’ man as the new ‘monarch’ of France who would drag the whole of Europe up to Russia into a bloody war never before seen in such proportions.

France was in chaos. For ten years it had seen nothing but counter-revolution after counter-revolution. Those who sent thousands of French men and women to the guillotine merely weeks or months before were themselves sent to the guillotine. Executioner today became executed tomorrow.

In fact, the guillotine was invented during that era. Initially, they hung the ‘traitors’ but so many had to be sent to their deaths that the hangman could not keep up with the schedule. Hence they came out with the idea of the guillotine, which was faster and more efficient and could keep up with the number of people that had to be put to death.

The aristocrats and clergy eventually grew tired of all this death and chaos and longed for France to revert to the old ‘peaceful’ system. Others, on the other hand, wished to revert to the Reign of Terror. They needed a strong person to restore order and they saw this person in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte who had proven himself on the battlefield.

France’s neighbours had ganged up against France in an attempt to put down the republic and restore the monarchy. Hence the need for a military genius to defend France against the foreign enemies of the revolution. Napoleon not only established a strong authoritarian government but he also introduced significant reforms of the bureaucracy, legal system and education system. And whenever France occupied any neighbouring country they introduced this same system into those countries, some which is still in use today, such as the metric system.

Eventually, France was defeated, mainly due to its folly in attacking Russia. What was initially the reason for Napoleon’s success eventually became the same reason for his failure -- in that the ‘living off the land’ as the army rapidly advanced into enemy territory without being held back by logistics support, like the old ways of doing battle, became impossible when Russia retreated and left a ‘scorched earth’ behind. It was not so much the Russian army rather than the cold and starvation that brought the French army to its knees. Out of 600,000 men who left Paris, a mere handful made it home.

After Napoleon’s defeat, a ‘New World Order’ had to be created, or at least a New European Order. And this was what the Congress of Vienna was tasked with in 1815. The boundaries of Europe were redrawn. New nation-states were created and old nation-states swallowed up by their neighbours. New countries emerged and old countries disappeared. They did exactly like what they did later to the Ottoman Empire after the First World War -- and which is the reason for all the problems the Middle East is facing today.

What the 1815 Vienna Congress hoped to achieve was a restoration of the Old World Order disguised as the New World Order -- mainly to maintain the monarchy system and block any possibility of republics emerging in Europe. Basically, the Vienna Congress was trying to turn the clock back to pre-1789 days, the era before the First French Revolution.

But that was pre-1789 when most of the people were illiterate peasants cum serfs/slaves. Since then, because of the building of roads, etc., which made transport and communications easier and more efficient, trade opened up and with it saw the emergence of a middle class that was richer than the peasants but not of the nobility.

In short, if I were asked to sum up what happened in 1820 Europe, I would say that pre-1789 Europe consisted of only two classes -- the upper class of nobility/clergy and the lower class of peasants/serfs. One generation later, Europe saw the emergence of a middle-class of traders, merchants, manufacturers, millionaires, poets, writers, painters, composers, play-writes, actors, sculptors, architects, engineers, inventors, journalists, activists, and whatnot. And it was this group of people, in the era that historians call ‘The Age of Romanticism’, that carried the spirit of reforms and changes.

Political movements and debating clubs sprang up all over Europe. Newspapers mushroomed. Secret Societies that operated underground were formed. Artists, poets, writers, architects, etc., flourished, as can be seen in the works published then and the buildings designed and built 200 years ago. It was an expression of change and this 'making a statement' of 200 years ago can still be seen today if you were to tour Europe or you pick up books published or paintings painted during that era.

In 1822, Greece saw a revolution where they successfully ousted their Ottoman colonialists followed by the Second French Revolution in 1830, Poland’s Revolution in 1831, Italy in the 1820s and again in the 1830s, Spain in 1833, Germany in 1848, etc.

The fallacy most people have is that revolutions start and succeed when the people scream ‘enough’ and they rise against tyranny. This cannot but be further from the truth. Most of the times the people do not even understand what is going on and are too busy trying to earn a living to care. It needed the emergence of the minority ‘romantics’ and an intellectual middle class for all this to happen.

‘Romantics’ and idealists like Garibaldi and Mazzini who united Italy into one nation-state, the civil servants (mainly tax collectors) in Greece who were fed up with the Ottomans ‘bleeding’ their country, the landowners of Poland who wanted to oust their Russian colonialists, Don Carlos (brother to the Spanish King, Ferdinand, who headed the Carlist movement) who opposed the Spanish Inquisition, the nationalist movement that wanted to unite Germany, and so on, were the spearhead of all these revolutions.

What 200 years of history, or at least the history of 200 years ago, has taught us is that the people matter little when it comes to revolutions. Most times the people either do not participate in it or do not understand what is going on. It needs a few key people, the thinkers and those with money, to set the wheels in motion.

We talk about change, reforms, peoples’ power, makhal sakti, kuasa rakyat, etc., in Malaysia. But what peoples’ power are we talking about when only 4 million out of 15 million eligible Malaysian voters come out to vote for change, meaning vote for the opposition? My long essay above has already shown that the people are not significant. It is the intellectual middle class and those with money that makes or breaks revolutions.

Do you think it was Umno that gained independence for Malaya? That is what Umno would like us to believe, of course. It was not Umno. It was the middle class and those with money (Malays, Chinese and Indians), the Malay teachers, the Malay writers, the Malay journalists, and, most important of all, the Malay nobility, that headed the independence movement. Yes, and that is why the first three prime ministers were all ‘orang istana’ (palace people).

Okay, some of these people may have been in Umno. But not all of them were in Umno because many Malays of the 1930s and 1940s were actually Socialists and members of trade unions and socialist movements or political parties -- not to be confused with Communists. In fact, it was fashionable in the 1930s and 1940s to be a Socialist, while Umno was a Nationalist movement.

Hence, it was not the 80% or so peasants (farmers, fishermen, kampong people, etc.) who engaged the British and demanded independence for Malaya. It was the 1% or 2% teachers, writers, journalists, elites, nobles, intellectuals, senior civil servants, merchants, traders, etc., who did. And that is how Malaya gained independence.

So, how do we relate all that to the current ‘revolution’ in Malaysia? If we were to draw parallels to Europe of 200 years ago, Malaya of 80 years ago, and Malaysia of today, then we can see that we need the support of the intellectuals, senior civil servants, journalists, writers, poets, painters, composers, singers, movie producers, actors, upper middle class (what we would today call the corporate captains), and so on. It is these people and not the rakyat who are going to ensure the success of our ‘revolution’.

This was how it has been over the last 200 years. And this is how it still is today. So, how does Pakatan Rakyat attract this group of people? Don’t start screaming ABU. What ABU are you talking about when only 4 million out of 15 million eligible voters vote for the opposition while the intellectuals, senior civil servants, nobility, etc., prefer Barisan Nasional and Umno?

Hence, Pakatan Rakyat needs to make itself more marketable to this very important group of people. You who are now reading Malaysia Today are most likely in that group of 4 million who voted Pakatan Rakyat in the last election. I do not wish to preach to the already converted. I want to know how Pakatan Rakyat can repackage itself so that it becomes more marketable to the group that does not yet share our aspirations and who, from over 200 years of history, has proven that it will determine whether a revolution succeeds or fails.