NO ONE CARES ABOUT MIC: Palanivel-Subra fight-to-death means nothing to Indians

For Francis Fukuyama, the end of history signifies not the “end” of history as such, but the beginning of democratic politics.

But it is the other way around in the MIC.

Contrary to Fukuyama, it is the beginning of democracy that seems to be sowing the seeds of the political decay within MIC.

Even though ‘gangster-type politics’ has been reduced in the MIC, legal challenges and counter-challenges might threaten the very survival of the MIC.

If the former president had been in power, gangsters and thugs would have played a dominant role in the resolution of conflicts within the party.

However, under the new president, the legal system is being used to settle political scores.

It is not that the gangster-type of politics was absent, but they are less relevant.

Moving away from mafia-type of politics is a step forward. Fighting it out in court is something to be welcomed.

However, democratisation in the party need not necessarily bring about changes for the betterment of the Indian community—a community that has been taken for a long-ride by the manipulative politicians of the MIC.

Legal and other forms of conflict between different factions in the MIC do not fully capture the relevance of the party for the advancement of Indians which is the poorest segment of the Malaysian population.

Whether the forces of G Palanivel or S Subramaniam prevail in the internecine warfare means nothing to the vast majority of Indians.

Indians have been abandoned by the MIC for the last 58 years under the administration of the BN. There are no indications that things would be different under Palanivel or Subramaniam.

It is the absence of good, clean and honest leadership in the MIC that is the fundamental source of the problem for the Indian community.

Indians are aware that MIC has become an irrelevant political entity to them and that the faster they embrace other progressive formations, the better it is for them and their children.

Following the 2008 election victories garnered by DAP and PKR, more and more Indians have abandoned MIC to join either the DAP or PKR.

In Penang, in the last two general elections, more than 80 percent of Indians voted for the PR coalition, the DAP being the major recipient of votes.

MIC has also become irrelevant to Umno and BN.

Unable to deliver Indian votes to Umno and other BN parties, MIC has come to be regarded as an “albatross”. The sooner the “albatross” is discarded, the better it is for the BN.

Umno cannot save the MIC or intervene to resolve the present conflict between the two factions.

Umno is fast disintegrating as a dominant political component of the BN.

MIC, without the support of its patron, is left to resolve its own intractable problems.

Democratisation might have slowly seeped into the party, but unfortunately this very process is beginning to derail the party.

MIC leaders might come and go.

Indians should not be deluded into thinking that the party can emerge from “ashes” to regain the community’s trust.

The party has betrayed the community beyond imagination.

I think Fukuyama should take a look at the political experience of the MIC and numerous other political organisations to make some amendments to this thesis about the relationship of democratisation to political development. - FMT