Democracy & Malaysia

Ahhh, democracy. Just the sound of that word makes people everywhere perk up their ears, feel more positive, and pump their fists as if they just found out they got a huge salary raise.

Most likely due to GE13, I've recently had 14 year-old kids talk to me about democracy and how great it is. Relatives and friends text me about how democracy will save us all, and the Web has been running havoc about how democracy in Malaysia has "died" after the GE13 results.

What is democracy, though? What does it really mean, and how does it actually affect us as citizens when it's applied to society and government.

The first line in the Wikipedia entry on "Democracy" states that "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives". As with all theories and ideas, the definition is pretty fucking vague. That's because it's exactly that -- an idea -- and we should never forget that things in life have a way of working differently in theory than in practice.

For starters, who gets to define which citizens are "eligible", and who gets to define which decisions "affect their lives"? The government? But if they get to decide, then the principal of democracy has already been defeated, unless the government was elected upon those principals. But then, who decided who were eligible to elect the government? And hence, the vicious cycle continues.

In order to understand how democracy works in practice, we must first understand how a government is operated, as well as the difference between a form of government and a system of governance.

Let's talk a little bit about Malaysia. Malaysia is NOT a democracy by definition of its government form; it is a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy means that we have a head of state -- the king -- who makes decisions for the state (the country) while acting within the parameters and boundaries set by a constitution that was drafted when the country gained its independence. Constitutional monarchism is different from absolute monarchism in which a monarch has absolute power over all state affairs with no boundaries. Absolute monarchism is pretty much dictatorship. Let's be glad that's not the case for Malaysia.

As a system of governance, Malaysia employs a parliamentary system in which the monarch reserves his power and instead delegates control of the state to the parliament, which is headed by a prime minister. This is the same system that the UK uses. As to why Malaysia adopted the same system as the UK, I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. This system of governance allows for representative democracy, which means citizens have a say in the people who represent them in the parliament, which in turn makes decisions that affect the state and its people. This is the system that causes Malaysians to think wrongly that our government as a whole is a democracy.

Since the parliament, or legislature, is elected by the people, it would then seem that decisions made would be in the interest of the people who elected that legislature. Hooray for democracy. Everyone lives happily ever after. End of story.



Yeah, we wish.

We're all just human. The representatives we elect are also human. Some of them may make decisions based on what "the people" want, while others will utilize their position to make decisions based on their own ideals and merits. So the way a democratic system tries to allow for checks and balances is to give the people a chance to periodically change the people who represent them. This, in fact, is the heart and core of representative democracy in application and practice.

Ever hear people say, "If you don't vote, you don't get to complain"? I disagree wholeheartedly. I say, "If you vote, you don't get to complain, especially if who you vote for won". Why? Because you chose the person to represent you, and if that person doesn't do as you expect, that just means your judgment of that person was inaccurate. Too bad. Suck it up and wait for the next election.

Don't get me wrong. I think everyone who can should vote, and I understand that the phrase above is used mostly as a method to coax people who don't think it's worth their time and effort to vote to get off their asses. Still, an inaccurate statement used for a grand purpose doesn't make it right. The fact is, every citizen has the right to complain and bicker, but it certainly doesn't mean that'll change anything.

So what about direct democracy? Some people argue that if the people actually got direct control over all the decisions made by the government that things would somehow magically become peachy.

Aside from the fact that trying to maintain a manageable direct democracy system would be an absolute nightmare, this seemingly ideal concept assumes that everyone understands the good of the whole and that all citizens are well-educated and have good common sense. If you think that you can trust the majority of our nation's population to be sensible, well-informed, and committed to the good of the whole, you should probably get your head checked with an MRI.

Currently, a trend of urban residents versus rural residents can be seen in Malaysia. That is to say that political and social views differ greatly from those who live in urban areas and those who live in rural areas. Since a direct democracy system is basically "majority wins", the dominant faction would basically have control of the country, ALL THE TIME. In Malaysia's case, the country would be under a dictatorship of sorts by the rural community -- the mojority faction. This is most likely the reason that no country has actually put direct democracy into practice.

If you think about it, that really isn't unlike the result we saw in GE13. While the urban population wished to see change for whatever reasons, the rural community saw no need to change a lifestyle they are used to and have no beef with. Humans are animals of habit. We basically deny and avoid change unless we feel strongly compelled to do otherwise. So change will not come easy. It takes time and a lot of hard work -- mainly to spread information and educate the whole population with proper knowledge. If after we accomplish that, people still opt for no change, then who is to say that democracy has not spoken?

Improvement and change comes from within -- within everyone who truly wants the change. I'm not going to get into the fiasco of people asking the US for intervention, that's a whole other blog entry (and this one's already long enough), but suffice to say that if we can't put forth the will and hard work to change society, then we truly have no business whining and shouting.

I hope, very earnestly, that people will see that democracy is not a magical pill that solves everything. People will always complain when they don't get what they want, regardless of what type of governance system is in place or who the leaders are. Since it's simply not possible to satisfy everyone, you will always have arguments, dirt-slinging, cheating, fighting, and all sorts of ugliness. The best that we can do as citizens, is to put forth our hard work and best effort to making sure everyone understands their choices and rights, and that decisions made by governing bodies are made justly and in the interest of the majority.

So the next time you feel like shouting for democracy, think about what you have contributed to change society to your ideal, other than squealing like a trapped rat. If you can't think of anything, please, don't blame it on democracy or the lack of it, because democracy only works for you if you work for it.