Politicking to what end?

June 11, 2007 |

The following article by me was previously published in Suara PRM, sometime in May 2003. A comment on my previous post has prompted me to republish the edited version here:

“He has honour if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so.” - Walter Lippmann

Many people, especially politicians, say that the raison d’être of political parties are to win elections and, thereby, win power. Well, that may be true, but I believe we must make a clear and important distinction between a political party’s reason for existence and its ultimate objective. Similarly, we must make the necessary and also important distinction between means and ends.

Here, many would be reminded of the oft-cited Machiavellian adage that says the ends justify the means. I would not be surprised that many politicians subscribe to this point of view, especially in the ranks of Barisan Nasional. However, I am very concerned that some in “opposition” parties may also subscribe to this point of view, albeit not overtly.

Therefore, when it comes to means and ends, I believe there are two precepts that must be kept in mind and, more importantly, practised consistently if we are to effect real reforms in Malaysia (as opposed to cosmetic changes, or simply replacing one administration with another of the same kind).

The first, although not as well known as Machiavelli’s prescription, is a rule or practice that is extremely important if we are to be effective in whatever we are doing; that is, we must always begin with the end in mind.

In other words, no matter what journey we intend to embark on, we must be clear as to where the destination is. Regardless of whether it is a business venture, an academic pursuit or a social activity, I think it is quite plain how important such a precept is. Thus, in the critical endeavour of politics, I would argue that it is of utmost importance that we are all very clear as to what our ultimate ends are.

At the risk of stating the obvious and oversimplifying matters, I would say that the ultimate ends of political parties – at least all progressive ones – should be to achieve social justice and create a civil society for the benefit of all, irrespective of sex, race, religion, class or political opinion.

Thus stated, the ultimate ends and the raison d’être of political parties are not in conflict. However, it must be clear to those practising the art and science of politics, which are means, and which are ends.

It goes without saying that to achieve social justice and to create a civil society for all of us to live in, a political party must have the power to do so. And that, in a democratic state, would usually entail contesting in elections and winning the majority of seats in the legislature to not only effectively steer the legislative process but also form the government of the day.

And thus a political party that becomes the government of the country would have the necessary power to implement its policies to engender social justice and establish a civil society.

However, it ought to be clear that to win elections, to become the government of the day and gain political power are only means to the greater ends of achieving social justice and creating a civil society.

What really concerns me is the way so many politicians focus on the means with little or no attention paid to the ends. Some may argue there is no necessity to state the obvious, and that the party that has won power would thereafter do the necessary to achieve its rarely stated ends.

However, this reminds me of the unwritten promise of authoritarian regimes to give freedom to the people and install democracy in the country after it has achieved development and delivered economic prosperity.

As we all know, few governments have fulfilled these kinds of promises, either because most authoritarian regimes have failed to develop the country effectively, or that they have done so but then decided to cling on to power and reap the benefits of economic development. Therefore, there have been very few voluntary transitions from authoritarian regimes to democratically (in the true sense of the word) elected governments.

This begs the question of whether a party that seems bent on winning power through elections by any means will have the political will to carry out its “understated” objectives after it gains that power.

Further along these lines, the second related precept was expressed by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi. In those days when he led the non-violent independence struggle against the British, one rule that he rigorously applied was that the means and ends must be the same.

So, if our ends are achieving social justice and creating a civil society, our means must be both just and civil. Or if we our objective is to establish a state administration based on the values of integrity, wisdom and compassion, then our actions toward that end must be based on the values of integrity, wisdom and compassion.

This precept is not just a matter of principle. As a matter of logic, it is simply not possible to uphold the truth if we pursue that end by deceptive means. Similarly, we cannot achieve social justice by resorting to unjust strategies.

Before I go on, it should be noted that the neat little package called Social Justice contains many things, including freedom, equality, unity, democracy, equity and human dignity. Thus, if social justice is an end that we pursue, then whatever we do must also reflect the essential elements of social justice.

When I decided to enter the political arena, I was very conscious of what politics meant for me. Primarily, it was about formulating and implementing policies for the benefit of the people; election to office was, and still is, a secondary consideration.

I believe that it is incumbent upon political leaders to develop and equip themselves with not only leadership skills but also a clear vision of how a civil and just society should look like. Similarly, it is the duty of “opposition” political parties – a duty owed to the people – to develop a clear set of policies for the nation and present a credible and viable alternative to the people.

If political leaders fail to realise this, then we should not even be talking about winning elections. Although it may be the norm for Umno-BN to win elections through election strategies rather than policies or principles, I believe that the opposition should be winning through the people’s confidence in us based on our policies and principles. We should win by having proven through our track record that no matter what happens we stay true to the people and to our principles.

For if we merely win through short-term election strategies, with little or no concern for the ultimate objectives that benefit the people, aren’t we simply replacing one government with another of the same kind, albeit of another flavour.

So, in the end, if politics only means Realpolitik, then I do not wish to be a part of it – for I am not interested in the business of horse trading alone. I am in politics for justice and the people.

Comments

8 Comments so far

Freethinker on June 11, 2007 9:15 pm
However I found that if opposition were to not able to win the election, it’s even harder than to further their ideal.

Malaysians generally aren’t going to win by policies and principle unless there’s a serious radical change in the current political landscape.
Ibn Juferi on June 12, 2007 9:42 am
DAP has sound ideology and policies that it can implement if it rules Malaysia. DAP is a member of Socialist International, along with Turkey’s CHP led by Deniz Baykal and Iraq’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan led by Jalal Talabani.

OTOH, PAS, Keadilan as well as the defunc PRM are oppurtunist. Anwat Ibrahim is power hungry as we know he is desperate to be next Prime Minister. So, eventhough his party’s ideology conflicts with his partnership of Pas which has called for an Islamic theocracy where non Muslims (ie apostate Muslims) be killed. This is why Keadilan suffered a massive defeat in the recent Ijok election and it is becoming irrelevant as times passes.

DAP is not power hungry which is why DAP left Barisan Alternatif to be an independent third party. The BA, which is PAS-led and comprises of PAS, Keadilan and PSM will be wiped out in the next general election held in 2009.

I am a Kelantanese and I will vote for UMNO and its Barisan Nasional allies because I say “Tak nak Islam”. The rakyat is the boss and we, rakyat can sack all PAS state assemblymen (ADUN) even the Menteri Besar Nik Abd Aziz Nik Mat. I pray that Lord God will make Datuk Anuar Musa the next Kelantan Chief Minister.

Am I “Anti Islam” ? The answer is yes and no. If that word means rejecting the Islamic Party and its Jihadist ideology then yes as such rejection is democratic and a fundamental human right. As an observant Christian who observes Canon Law I cannot allow my lack of voting to enable PAS and its sole ally, Keadilan to retain power in their last bastion, Kelantan. This is because such will make me Anti Christian and a hypocrite to my faith.

So, I call Malaysians to vote like this:

Federal:
1. BN vs. PAS (Vote BN)
2. BN vs. Keadilan (Vote BN)
3. DAP vs. Keadilan vs BN (Vote DAP)
4. DAP vs. BN (Vote DAP)

States:
1. BN vs. PAS (Vote BN)
2. BN vs. Keadilan (Vote Keadilan*)
3. DAP vs. Keadilan vs BN (Vote DAP)
4. DAP vs. BN (Vote DAP)

*Vote Keadilan only if its candidate is non Muslim and non Islamist. Ask the candidate what is his position on Syariah and whether he says murtads (who are non Muslims) should be under Sharia. If he says murtads are Muslims, then he is Anti Christian and anti non Muslim. You should vote him out.

Malaysian Constitution must be re-written from the scratch with references to Islam be removed. Also, both Article 3 and Article 11 should be repealed just as Sharia Courts should be closed. All Malaysians should demand PAS to be banned as it is “racist” Malay supremacist party that advocates “apartheid” towards non Muslims.
munirah on June 14, 2007 7:24 pm
i hope you get elected to office one day! a new breed of politicians is very much needed in malaysia.

p/s: i’ve met you in person a few years back. i used to come to those young people roundtable thingy at SCAH - wished i was as articulate as you are sir!

p/p/s: i think i want to attempt to answer your question,’what is the end of Islam’ but haven’t got time to sit it through & write. maybe one day..
Jonson Chong on June 15, 2007 12:28 am
munirah, thank you for your kind comments. We must all do our bit. Salam.
shenyeeaun on June 16, 2007 8:55 pm
good blog. keep it up
Bob K on June 18, 2007 12:07 pm
Nice to see Garyism active here as well
Mata keadilan on June 18, 2007 3:18 pm
Rakyat nak tau apa pendirian PKR mengenai pergolakan di Palestin. PAS dah terang-terang sokong Hamas dan menolak kepimpinan Fatah.PKR pulak macam mana.Takan nak tunggu George Bush (penasihat parti) nasihat Anwar (de facto leader)dulu kut.Kalau tak silap-mesti PKR sokong Fatah sebab bapak besar merestui Fatah.
Bob K on June 19, 2007 4:06 am
Apakah kaitan pergolakan di Palestin dengan pergolakan di dalam tanahair?

Kuman di seberang laut nampak, gajah di depan mata tak nampak.

Recently Written

Index

Archives

Admin

Search

Jun

11

Politicking to what end?

Comments

Blogroll

WP Themes