[ Laman Ehwal Semasa ReformIS ]
Date: 16 Aug 1999
Time: 02:36:39
Remote User: -
DR M'S FAKE "POLITICAL STABILITY" By Witness KL
"Political stability" is claimed by Dr Mahathir and other BN leaders as one of their great contributions to Malaysia. And many of us are falling for this argument. But is it really true? In fact the BN's claim to provide political stability is absolutely false. Don't believe me? Then read on.
Real political stability does not mean there must be no political change. A truly stable country is able to handle political changes in peaceful ways that do not threaten the fabric of the nation or of its basic institutions.
Can the BN government react in a peaceful and democratic way to the people's calls for reform? Apparently not. It is treating these calls as disloyalty - or even treachery. The BN's anti-democratic reactions run the risk of turning a peaceful political dispute into one which threatens the peace of the country.
LET THE RIVER OF POLITICS FLOW
A stable system of DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IS LIKE A FREE WILD RIVER. The apparent turbulence of political debate, changing alliances and shifting voting patterns is actually the source of its strength and underlying stability. When a wild river is faced with a disturbance like a fallen tree across its path the river just changes course slightly. The river itself remains intact. Similarly, a healthy democracy can usually face a recession or some other crisis with flexibility. Often such a crisis will lead to a change of government, but the system of government itself is unscathed. In fact, the change in leadership is often just what was needed to bring a fresh approach and to make it easier to discard failing policies. When a ruling party loses legitimacy with the people it can be replaced simply through elections, with no danger to social and political stability. Both government and opposition trust the system and refrain from resortingto dirty or violent tactics.
By contrast, AN AUTHORITARIAN REGIME IS LIKE A DAMMED UP RIVER. Political repression, like a dam on a river, can give the illusion of stability even as regime may be "silting up" with corruption and stagnation. Peaceful policy debate and the ability to choose between alternative leaders can be held back by the threat of State power, just as the flowing waters of a river can be held back by the high cement walls of a dam.
But in the face of an earthquake or a devastating flood even mighty dams can break - with the entire valley being devastated. Similarly, authoritarian systems of government can be racked by crisis or even collapse completely when some event threatens the legitimacy of their rule. When authoritarian ruling parties lose legitimacy they treat this as a threat to the entire fabric of government. It is this attitude which makes any challenge become a true national crisis and raises the likelihood that the challenge will threaten stability and peace.
CHANGING GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EQUAL POLITICAL INSTABILITY.
We need to get this straight. Political stability is NOT the same as having no changes of government. Look around! There are many democratic countries that have regular changes of government and yet are politically stable places. This is true of most Parliamentary democracies in the West. Parties that are in opposition often win elections and become the new government. When a truly democratically elected government loses its legitimacy and support it will simply be voted out - no big deal.
There are also a now many developing countries that have established open political systems where hand-overs of power can occur peacefully and smoothly, without the event becoming a crisis. Examples include Brazil, Argentina, Chile, India, Thailand, the Philippines, and recently South Korea.
Of course, there are some Parliamentary democracies that are not stable. But the point here is that frequent changeover of governments is not the same thing as political instability.
CONTINUOUS RULE BY ONE PARTY IS NOT POLITICAL STABILITY
OK, so maybe changing governments is not the same as instability. But surely keeping one party (or coalition) in power guarantees political stability. Right? Sorry, wrong again.
Again look around. South Africa was ruled by its National Party under the Apartheid ideology for over 40 years. But for much of that time it was anything but stable. Is the SLORC regime in Myanmar/Burma stable? Of course not. Since the mid-1980s that country has been plagued by crisis after crisis. Even Suharto's Indonesia has now been revealed not to have been truly stable - despite its apparent calm lasting several decades. The Soviet Union under the Communist Party was "politically stable" from 1917 until 1989. But almost every change of President was a national crisis, often accompanied by bloody purges.
These regimes were not stable, they were politically rigid. Their very rigidity meant that their ruling elites were lulled into a false sense of security. They clung to rigid controls on political debate but failed to notice that corruption was undermining the very foundations of stability and prosperity. Stability implies an ability to handle change without the peace of the country being fundamentally threatened. All rigid regimes are vulnerable to shocks, such as an economic downturn or the death of a key leader.
When an authoritarian regime (or even a semi-authoritarian regime) loses legitimacy with its people a major crisis becomes inevitable. The regime cannot tolerate a change of government through the ballot box. An authoritarian government can usually only be shaken by massive social unrest, demonstrations, civil disobedience and such like. So the consequences for stability of an authoritarian government losing the confidence of its people are much more serious and traumatic than when a democratic government faces the same situation.
Of course, some countries have it easier than others in trying to achieve political stability. Ethnic divisions, religious divisions, and a large gap between rich and poor are all ingredients that make stability more difficult to achieve. But rigid authoritarian regimes are not a solution - they do not usually heal such rifts. In fact, they often use these divisions to keep hold of power through "divide and rule" tactics. Some regimes simply repress all controversial political expression. But in the long run this can be disastrous. Just look at former Yugoslavia. The long-term prospects for stability in the new South Africa are now much brighter than they ever were under Apartheid.
DR M'S REGIME HAS BECOME POLITICALLY "BRITTLE" NOT STABLE
You might say it is unfair to compare Malaysia with the brutal regimes mentioned above. It is true that Malaysia under Dr Mahathir is still not totally authoritarian. It is somewhat "democratic" in the sense that opposition parties can operate and elections are held regularly. But Dr Mahathir's government is perilously close to being an authoritarian regime. The political game is highly stacked against the opposition through numerous oppressive laws and the BN-controlled mass media. There are extremely serious doubts over the political independence of key national institutions that are supposed to provide protection against government misuse of power (Electoral Commission, Judiciary, AG's chambers, Police - especially the Special Branch, and the Anti-Corruption Agency).
The threat of oppressive laws, the bias of the mass media and the shattered reputations of the key independent institutions have all reached new depths since September 1998. Like all governments in the authoritarian mould, Dr M's government cannot tolerate the loss of its legitimacy with the majority of the people.
Power in Malaysia has now become concentrated into the hands of very few people (oligarchy) and especially into the hands of just one person, the PM. There are few safeguards to prevent the formation of a true dictatorship. This is a dangerous situation for any country. One-man rule is definitely not a sign of stability, no matter how successful or skilful this leader might be. The biggest danger is that concentration of power raises the stakes in any struggles for the top posts. Furthermore, the high stakes become even higher the more that corruption and patronage politics take hold. In this situation the tiny clique in power simply cannot afford to let go. The PM and his friends have shown that they are prepared to go to extreme lengths to protect their power.
Malaysia under Dr M has become politically rigid, not stable. An election victory for the BN achieved by repression, cheating, propaganda and threats would not be a victory for democratic stability. It would represent the further petrification of Malaysia's democracy into a brittle and fragile "fake" stability. Malaysia's semi-authoritarian system (especially under Dr M) has reached the point were any challenge to the top leadership is an extremely destabilising event. In fact, every time in Malaysian history when UMNO's or the PM's rule has been seriously challenged, elements in the ruling clique have escalated the conflict to the point of national crisis (this happened in 1969, 1986/87 and now in 1998/99). The periods of calm and prosperity that Malaysia has enjoyed in between these crises do NOT mean we have real stability.
In the current crisis, the ruling clique has apparently been prepared to sacrifice the reputations, independence and integrity of key national institutions in order to protect their hold on power. The treatment of peaceful demonstrators in September and October 1998 and April 1999 has raised grave worries that the ruling clique may even be prepared to incite violence if they think it will safeguard their power.
A victory for the BN in the coming election will probably not change that. Only democratic reforms like those advocated by the Barisan Alternatif can peacefully remove the dam on the river of Malaysian democracy and take us towards real, rather than fake political stability. Dr M's regime is politically brittle not stable.