Then there was the 13th May 1969 riot in Kuala Lumpur which had also ended with over a hundred of casualties (See Kia Soong, May 13: Declassified documents on the Malaysian riots of 1969). The most recent demonstration in our political history was during Anwar’s case in 1998. The event was dubbed as the biggest demonstration ever staged in Malaysia. The great support by the public was partially due to his “magnetic charisma” and “leadership appeal”. Since then, Anwar’s case in 1998 – public demonstration has entered into the Malaysian political psyche and inadvertently became part of Malaysia’s political culture. The rise of this culture, statistically speaking is attributable to Anwar, who has managed to convince his countrymen of the efficacy of demonstration in facing the powers-that-be. It is not surprising that in the post-Anwar era, demonstration has increased significantly, it grew bolder and has become popular political expression in the modern Malaysia.
My question here is simple: if we view this issue from the perspective of political theory: is demonstration symbolise country’s vibrant democracy? Or to put in more simple term, is demonstration democratic? To its advocates in Malaysia, demonstration is an expression of “suara rakyat” or “people’s voice”, therefore logically it represents democratic practices. According to Lincolnian’s definition and advocate of democracy, it is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Thus, since “suara rakrat” is truly coming from Rakyat, then it must be democratic.
How true is this hypothesis? Firstly, let’s talk about numbers. When a demonstration is organised, how many people would turn up? Is it 1000 people? 10,000 people, 100,000 people? Or maybe 200,000 people. They came to one designated area with banners and flags, gathered and chanting the slogans. After few hours, they went home, satisfied for so called expressing people’s wish for a change. Now, let’s put this figure into wider perspective. Malaysia’s total population is 26 million. The figure we have just now was, says 100,000. So, what happened to another 25 million and 900,000 people who did not express their opinion in that manner? Can we call this democracy? However, democracy is “one man, one vote.” The 25.9 million is not equivalent to 100,000 people. This is a simple fact that many were ready not to heed. But, it lies at the core question about democracy. How come our people who claim wanting of democracy but ended up become undemocratic?
This phenomenon reminds me of al-Ghazali’s metaphor of a thief. He says, sometimes “victim become more ferocious than the thief.” When someone becomes a victim of theft, he would cry at the top of his lung calling for help. People would come and beat the thief to death. Now, who is more ferocious here? The thief who just stole a few ringgit and beaten to death or someone who calls for people to beat the person to his death? In fact, the oppressed could be crueller than the oppressor, especially when he used “undemocratic means” in the name of democracy to express injustices the oppressor has committed.
Similarly in the case of demonstration, it was used to express dissatisfaction and injustices the so called “oppressor” has committed. But, they have caused tremendous problems to others, to economy, small traders, people going to workplace and road users. The only few trouble the many. So, what’s so democratic about demonstration? To Bentham and Rawl, that’s simply unacceptable.
Secondly, was demonstration effective in attaining its objectives, whatever that is? Effective here means to “achieve their targeted objectives” such as unseating the government, forcing the powers-that-be to change their policy/ course of action and etc.
The advocates of demonstration might think so. But, if we read the history of demonstration, we can observe that the end result of demonstration is casualties. Let me present some examples. Since I am an 80s-generation, I’m just familiar with events occurred during my era. Let’s go to Europe. How demonstration ended in Revolution Square, Bucharest during Nicolae Ceauşescu in 1989? Western press reported that there were about 26,000 deaths before Ceauşescu and his wife Elena were prosecuted? The August Coup in Soviet Union during the last period of Gorbachev era in 1991 also ended with death. Same case in the Tiananmen Square China in 1989. Red Cross reported that, the 1989 Protest ended with 3,000 deaths.
So, are we going to that direction and extent, by trading human life with our political objectives? Is that democracy is all about? Show me statistics that democracy can bring about positive changes to both sides. Even in the most flourished democracy in the world, i.e. United States of America, demonstrators were not entertained, partially due to the US’s hypocrisy. What’s so hypocritical about the US was that, they criticise other governments that trying to stop demonstration. But, when it happens in the US itself, they have no reservation whatever to detain and charge the person with “disturbing public order.” Because they knew demonstration is bad for the US. But, unfortunately to some unenlightened Malaysian, they still believe in this combustible instrument of change, so to speak!
In sum, public demonstration is not a “civilised way” of political expression, but it is a scare tactic and cheap way used by a desperate to call for a change. Change for what, we are not sure!
* This post is contributed by a guest author known as Mr EJ Stone for drnellwordpress.com. Whatever written here are views of his own
 |
| Gandhi says. |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan