WARNING: this is a rant.
Yes, I am also concerned with the process of the elections. I agree that illegal tactics have been used to gain advantage. I do know that gerrymandering is a problem. I understand why people are frustrated and upset with the outcome.
But what I am irritated by is people who react as though this problem is somehow unique to Malaysia and then self-righteously lecture me about it. I mean, I just cannot take it lying down after having sat through all those years of political theory and jurisprudence classes... Even if I could only construct a one-sided debate as a rant on my blog.
Okay here goes...*deep breaths*
One: Winning the popular vote does NOT mean that you AUTOMATICALLY have the right to form government.
Yes I know getting the popular vote and not forming government sounds unfair ("Why shouldn't it be what the majority of people decide?"), but
that's just not the way it works.
Why? Because we are not a pure direct democracy (hardly anyone is nowadays). And for good reason too - governing by popular vote alone means that the minority will easily become subject to the wishes of the majority. As any good jurisprudence student will dutifully tell you, straight up
majority rule can quickly descend into "tyranny of the majority".
Plus it's not really workable in modern day systems of representative democracy. If you want straight up direct democracy why do we even need to elect representatives? Might as well do away with the electoral constituency altogether. But surely no one is suggesting a return to the 'good ol' assembly days of Athens...?
Two: The election results really are NOT so outrageous that they are beyond belief
Ok let me give you an example:
In the 2005 UK general elections, the Labour party won parliamentary majority with 55% of the seats. And what share of the popular vote did they get? Approximately 35%.
Compare that to Malaysia's recent election results - BN has parliamentary majority with roughly 60% of seats, and got about 47% of the popular vote. So statistically speaking the result is not entirely so ridiculous that it is inconceivable and cannot be justified and MUST be overturned.
Oh
and that reminds me, in the Bush/Gore US presidential elections, it was
Al Gore who won the popular vote... but guess who became president?
So coming back to the point:
I'm not saying it's not a problem nor am I trying to justify the outcome. I am just saying DO SOME RESEARCH before giving me a pseudo-history lesson.
Three: NOT everyone who votes for BN is 'crazy', 'unenlightened', 'imbecile'
People are well within their rights to vote for a party that will protect their own interests. Ideal as though it may be, no one is under any duty to vote for the good of the country, for the good of the majority, least of all for the good of other people.
Many people will vote for what they think will be best for themselves. I honestly do not think there is anything wrong with that.
I could go into whole expositions about political individualism and collectivist schools of thought but I won't because I am almost 100% sure that was not what was on your mind and would therefore be a waste of words...
Four: There is no US against THEM
Identity is not a fixed concept - people continually define and redefine themselves depending on what boundaries are drawn. So depending on which demographic factor
you choose (age, race, religion, gender, class, education level, marital status etc.), you might sometimes be in the majority, sometimes be in
the minority. A big part of politics is to pick the factors that matters
to people the most, the ones with which they identify by strongly and can easily
be galvanised by.
Which is why in the recent elections race became a bigger
issue than class. Arguably the results can be better explained by
class rather than race differences, but the latter gets more attention
because race identity is ingrained in the Malaysian psyche,
whereas class identity is still nascent. And these are just 2 of the most obvious factors - I mean, no one bothers to
breakdown the results by gender/marital status because they are just not seen as politically significant, but what of other more
invisible factors that might have been at play?
So there is no need to go around accusing 'kampung Malays' of not knowing better, or 'rich spoiled brats' who only know how to suck off the spoons of privilege. You simply cannot know the reasons why people voted one way or the other, or what identity factor might have been at play the day they cast their votes into the ballet box.
Conclusion
Again, you are entitled to have your opinions.
But why don't you also sit through a whole freaking year of tutorials in Law, Democracy and Citizenship taken by Professor Neil Walker, Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the University of Edinburgh before you even start telling me about them.
*Exhale...*
