Divide and rule: Umno's forte

 

So, yes, you want freedom of expression, association, assembly, etc. And your comments even here in Malaysia Today are your expression of this desire. But are you not playing into Umno’s hands? Are you not doing exactly what Umno wants you to do? Are you not helping to increase this polarisation rather than helping to bridge the divide?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin: divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.

The maxims divide et impera and divide ut regnes were utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon. There is the example of Gabinius parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of The Wars of the Jews (De bello Judaico). Strabo also reports in Geography, 8.7.3 that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites "divide et impera" in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War (Dell'arte della guerra), that a Captain should endeavour with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns ranging from Louis XI to the Habsburgs. Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the Institutes, reporting that when it was demanded by the Lords and Commons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in Parliament, it was answered: "Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt." [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.]

On the other hand, in a minor variation, Sir Francis Bacon wrote the phrase "separa et impera" in a letter to James I of 15 February 1615. James Madison made this recommendation in a letter to Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787, which summarised the thesis of The Federalist #10: "Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles." In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch by Immanuel Kant (1795), Appendix one, Divide et impera is the third of three political maxims, the others being Fac et excusa and Si fecisti, nega.

Elements of this technique involve:

* creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign,

* aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign,

* fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers,

* encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending.

Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories.

The concept is also mentioned as a strategy for market action in economics to get the most out of the players in a competitive market. (Wikipedia)

******************************

People will always be divided. We are divided by gender, race, class, religion, political ideology, interests, loyalties, and much more. Hence it is not that difficult to divide the people. All you need to do is to exploit what divides them and play on their sentiments, hates, fears, and whatnot.

As what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, people are like herds. And if you know how to play the game you can get them to follow this herd mentality. All it needs is for someone to shout something and the rest would follow. Hasn’t the Bersih 3.0 rally demonstrated this?

How many came out on Saturday, 28th April 2012, because their friends also did so? And how many ‘breached’ the barricades and tried to storm Dataran Merdeka also because others did so? How many would have done it had they been the only one and not part of a mob? Alone, most of us would not do what we would do in a crowd.

The British were experts at this game. In fact, most colonial masters were. If not, how could a mere few thousand rule over hundreds of millions? And say what you like, Umno was a British creation. I have written about this many times in the past so I really do not need to repeat myself. Let me summarise it by just saying that the British needed a party like Umno to rule the country so that the day that Malaya was given independence they would not be leaving behind a government that is hostile to the British, and hence a threat to British business interests in Malaya.

So what Umno knows they learned from the British. The Federal Constitution of Malaya that the British created for a soon-to-be independent Malaya had divide and rule in mind. The British wanted the Malays to control the administration and the security services and the non-Malays to control the corporate sector. That way Malaya would never become united and the country would be divided by race.

Chin Peng and the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) saw this. That was why they opposed the British model of an independent Malaya. The CPM had been fighting for independence way before even the Japanese came during WWII. But the CPM’s idea of an independent Malaya differed from what the British had in mind.

Of course, the CPM wanted a socialist state. The British wanted a Westminster Parliamentary system. And, to get the Malays to agree to the British model rather than the CPM model, the British convinced the Malays that Malaya should retain its Monarchy, reduced to a Constitutional Monarchy, for the sake and future of the Malays who would find life intolerable under a meritocratic form of Republic.

The British then wrote certain ‘safeguards’ into the Constitution. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the Supreme Head of the Federation. (Many refer to the Agong as the King but this is incorrect. The Agong is merely the First amongst Equals). Islam is the religion of the Federation. And Malay is the National Language.

Technically, these three issues can be amended or repealed by majority vote in Parliament. In other words, technically, the Agong can be removed as the Supreme Head of State, as can Islam as the religion of the Federation and Malay as the National Language. But in reality it cannot be done even if more than two-thirds of Parliament votes so. It would need a unanimous vote of the Rulers Conference to do this. Majority vote is not enough. It would have to be by unanimous vote. And how do you get 12 Rulers to vote unanimously on this matter?

As I said, technically, it can be done. But with the 12 Rulers as head of religion, unless all 12 of them agree, then it is a non-starter. And if Parliament, by majority vote, tries to bulldoze the amendments through Parliament, there would be hell to pay.

We must not forget that while the Police Force (PDRM) serves the government-of-the-day and takes orders from the Minister, the armed forces takes orders from their Commander-in-Chief, the Agong. And the other 11 Rulers are Colonels-in-Chief of the various branches of the armed forces. Hence the Rulers and not the Minister of Defence has command over the armed forces.

Article 150 of the Constitution permits the Yang Di Pertuan Agong to issue a Proclamation of Emergency and to govern by issuing ordinances that are not subject to judicial review if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened.

Hence, if the Agong feels that certain developments in the country are not conducive to peace and stability, emergency can be declared, Parliament is suspended, and the country comes under military rule.

Malaysia is currently going through its worst period of polarisation in maybe more than 40 years. This is certainly working in favour of Umno. In fact, this is Umno’s game plan. And the end game is simple. In the event that Umno loses power and chaos erupts, as it certainly will if Umno loses power, then emergency is declared and Parliament no longer has any power.

Why do I say this? I say this because I would do exactly the same if I were the Prime Minister and Umno President and I wanted to make sure that I stay in office even if the voters have voted me out. And the fact that the three Rs (Race, Religion and Royalty) are being played to the hilt the last couple of years only means that the ingredients for the declaration of an emergency are all there.

So, yes, you want freedom of expression, association, assembly, etc. And your comments even here in Malaysia Today are your expression of this desire. But are you not playing into Umno’s hands? Are you not doing exactly what Umno wants you to do? Are you not helping to increase this polarisation rather than helping to bridge the divide?

A few thousand can rule over millions if they are in command of the military. The colonial masters have proven this fact. And the Rulers are in command of the military. While most of the Rulers may appreciate democracy, none would hesitate to suspend democracy if the nation’s peace and stability are at stake.

Hence, while this fight for democracy, free and fair elections, freedom of expression and assembly, and whatnot, is going on, we must also, as the Malays say, act as if we tarik rambut dari tepung (sort of like walking on egg shells). We might be able to win the battles we are fighting. But whether, in the end, we shall also win the war is yet to be seen.

Certainly we have the power of the vote. But Umno has another stronger power than the vote. And that would be the power to suspend Parliament if there is a need to restore law and order.

Is this what we are hoping to see? Kerana mulut, badan binasa, the Malays would say: or, loose lips sink ships, in English. There is too much I cabar you and you cabar me going on. The ‘funeral’ outside Lim Guan Eng’s house, the beef burgers being sold in front of Ambiga’s house, and many other incidences, are all build-ups to a bigger thing to come.

Hence, do not dance to Umno’s tune. They want you to react the way you are reacting. And this reaction will be met with a bigger and more powerful reaction. Let’s stick to the fight for a civil society and a democratically elected government. In the end, people’s power will prevail.

But a few thousand of us here in Malaysia Today or the few thousand who march on the streets will not achieve this. We need all segments of society to sympathise with us. We need the support of more Malaysians. We are not the majority as much as we may think so. And if the Rulers feel we are a threat to the peace and stability of the country, even if we do see a clean, free and fair election, we will never see the changes we are hoping for, if what happened to many other countries also happens to Malaysia.

I hear a lot of brave talk here in Malaysia Today. But it is not enough that we are brave. We also have to be smart. And the smart thing would be to get those in the villages, those in government, those in the police, those in the military, and those who sit on the 12 thrones, to be with us and to share our aspiration. And cursing and mocking them is not the way we shall achieve this.

Maybe it is time to tone down a bit. Walk silently and carry a big stick, as they said in Walking Tall. Tunku Aziz, a man who has lived through WWII, the Emergency, May 13, and much more, understands this. He is, after all, from a police family. His concern is genuine. And for that he was mocked, cursed and vilified.

Some of you are too young to remember. Some were not even born yet then. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. And Umno knows all the different ways to skin a cat. And Umno also knows how to play the divide and rule game. And are certainly grossly divided, no two ways about it.

So be warned. Being warned is better than being told: I told you so!