opinion

Sociological approach to understanding reaction to Citizens’ Declaration

Ooi Kok Hin

The reactions to the widely-publicised Citizens’ Declaration can generally be categorised into two camps: first, support for the initiative which brings together arguably the strongest anti-establishment forces today, and second, disillusionment and uproar by those who abhor the opportunistic nature of the grand informal coalition.

Not withstanding the polarised debates, the distinct reactions can be explained through a sociological approach. We can first employ a tool of sociological analysis, which is to investigate a phenomenon through three factors: origins, nature, and functions.

Origins v Functions

In simplistic terms, origins refers to the “Where”, nature refers to the “What”, and functions refer to the “Why/How”.

For those who strongly opposed the joint declaration, they emphasise the origins factor, that is, the source of institutional abuse of power: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad himself.

This group couldn’t forgive the former prime minister for his crackdown on individual rights and the integrity of the institutions, let alone accept him as the "saviour".

Having fought against Dr Mahathir, his legacies and Mahathirism for the most part of their adult life, they view any proposal to incorporate the man into the Save Malaysia agenda as “opportunistic” at best, and “sellout” at worse.

Meanwhile, those who are willing to support the declaration emphasise the functions factor, that is, the need and utility to form a broad-based, albeit elitist, coalition to overthrow the chief danger of the time: the current executive.

This group doesn’t necessarily forgive Dr Mahathir and his allies, but they prioritise the function of the coalition to solve the problem over and above the origin of the problem.

This differentiation of priority of emphasis also leads us to the second sociological tool of analysis.

Utopian v Ideology

In 1929, Karl Mannheim wrote a book called “Ideology and Utopia”. The thinking of human groups, he argued, can be divided into two categories called ideology and utopia.

The concept of ideology “reflects the one discovery which emerged from political conflict, namely that ruling groups can in their thinking become so intensively interest-bound to a situation that they are simply no longer able to see certain facts which would undermine their domination, (it) obscures the real condition of society both to itself and to others, and thereby stabilises it (the status quo).”

In contrast, the concept of utopian thinking reflects “certain oppressed groups are intellectually so strongly interested in the destruction and transformation of a given condition of society that they unwittingly see only those elements in the situation which tend to negate it.”

Using this distinction, we can say that those who strongly oppose the declaration subscribe to utopian thinking. Shaharuddin Maaruf, in applying this distinction to analyse the social psychology of Muslims in Southeast Asia, wrote “These people are not at all concerned with what really exists; rather in their thinking, they already seek to change the situation that exists”.

In other words, they don’t care about the limits of the situation; what is permissible and doable within the present circumstances. Nothing less than an overthrow of the structure and status quo is satisfactory.

The thinking process of those who sided with the declaration can be said to be still functioning within the status quo. They, correctly or not, diagnose a possible solution based on the existing and realistic condition of the society. Because they still operate within the structure of the status quo, they are limited by the realm of the possible and are more susceptible with the idea of working with the lesser evils for the most immediate agenda.

The differences between the utopian-minded and the ideology-minded are plenty. The former couldn’t accept working with Dr Mahathir’s camp because they are part of the status quo which the group seeks to do away with.

Even if institutional reforms are demanded in the declaration, this group knows that any positive outcome would not do away with the status quo since the Mahathir-led coalition will have people inside the establishment party to replace the incumbent.

For this group, it doesn’t matter if there is no immediate possibility of a political revolution that can overthrow the establishment. It doesn’t matter if a deal with the devil offers the only realistic chance of change. All that matters is the utopian fervor to destruct the status quo.

The ideology-minded, pragmatic and focusing on the immediate, seek small wins and seize whatever chance of change. The utopian-minded, idealist and focusing on the structure, seek a new political order and disdain anything that falls short of a total annihilation of the status quo.

This sociological approach to understanding the distinct reaction to the Citizens’ Declaration is undertaken in the belief that our understanding of social and political phenomena could be improved by studying it with existing academic theories and a certain academic slant or rigour.

Ideas and theories are able to provide us with a tool of analysis to deepen our understanding and explain the process of social thought and refines our analysis, instead of ramblings and gut-feeling analysis.

This distinct style of thought, utopian and ideological, formulated by a sociologist long dead, is able to explain our society’s reaction to the declaration. The fundamental difference, in this case, lies in those who insist on nothing less than the breakdown of the existing order, and those who seek to work within the status quo and salvage whatever progress might be made. – March 12, 2016.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer, organisation or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.