Is democracy the enemy of the majority?

Democracy is a numbers game that benefits the majority. So, why do Malay-Muslim ultra-nationalists fear and oppose electoral reforms? How can the majority lose if the will of the majority is upheld?

Democracy as political adulthood

Many people in this world don’t believe in democracy. Talk to Russians who support Vladimir Putin, Chinese who defend the Chinese Communist Party and Muslims who go to battlefield for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis).

Democracy is a system that supposedly allows you to choose your government. It does not guarantee you a good government. It only gives you the government you ask for. If you vote villains or idiots into power, democracy can’t change them into angels or geniuses.

So, the virtue – or the setback – of democracy is that we become the master of our destiny. With democracy, we will truly deserve the governments we have.

We cannot blame God(s), luck, the Americans or the Jews any more for our choices and their consequences. 

In that sense, democracy really means political adulthood. In authoritarianism, we are kids and the authorities are our parents.

And the “parents” know best what books we can and cannot read, which parts of a movie we can or cannot watch, whose speeches we can and cannot listen to, what animals we can and cannot touch, and most of all why only they can be “parents”.

Why do ultra-nationalists hate democracy?

So, why do Russian, Chinese and pan-Muslim ultra-nationalists hate democracy? Why don’t they want their people to be the master of their own destiny? Why do they see democracy as the West’s Trojan horse to destroy their fatherland, nation or community?

There are at least three related reasons.

First, they reject political equality – which is core to democracy – and believe some people are simply more stupid than others and cannot be given the power to make decisions. The “stupid people” should just simply follow the smart ones.

Sometimes, the “stupid people” self-servingly refer to others. Sometimes, they count themselves in the “stupid people” before some larger-than-life authoritative figures.

Second, they hate open-endedness and diversity that democratic decision-making promises, seeing that simply as a manifestation of ineffectiveness, inefficiency, chaos and division.

Goal-orientated, they admire uniformity, unity and discipline. Don’t be surprised if they see ants as the role model species in the universe.

Often, for them, a country’s or community’s destiny and direction have been laid down in some cannons – religious or secular, ancient or modern. They love Nike’s tagline – just do it!

Third, they see human interactions as ultimately do-or-die group-based competition between “us” and “them”. And by permitting division and indulgence in ineffectiveness, democracy only weakens “us” in our fight against “them”.

Why did the West support democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia? They wanted to break up the Soviet Union and weaken the Russians, as how England, France and other Western European powers tried to contain the rise of Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Why does the West support democracy in China? They want to break up China and subject China to foreign domination as what happened from the Opium War in 1842 to the establishment of communist reign in 1949?

Why does the West support democracy in the Muslim world? They want to tame the Muslims, contaminate their faith and eventually convert them into Christianity.

Remember what the Crusaders did to Muslims in the 11th-13th centuries and how the West dismembered the Ottoman Empire, the last of the Caliphates, in the 19th-20th centuries.

Individual rights v collective survival

Democracy as an ideology is fundamentally based on individual rights, but in societies wrecked by foreign domination, or communities traumatised by hegemony of rival groups, democracy is only relevant if it can aid to the rise of the nation or community vis-à-vis their rivals.

In other words, who cares if democracy is right? “We” care only if democracy makes “us” stronger.

Insofar collective interests are perceived to be under threat, protection or advancement of individual rights will be a luxury.

And advocacy of individual rights is then easily demonised as – at best, naïve; worse, treacherous – attempts to undermine the collective.

And removing the under-siege mentality requires a fairer and more inclusive order, where nationality or group membership matters less in individuals’ wellbeing. Only when people don’t feel that they live in do-or-die group contestation, individuals can have real meaning.

In that sense, minority groups have good grounds to fear democracy – by default, how can a minority win a numbers game?

This explains why the whites in apartheid South Africa, the mainlanders in Chiang Ching Kuo’s Taiwan, the Sunni in Saddam’s Iraq, and now, the Alawites in Syria, and Sunnis in Bahrain fear democratisation. 

If minorities’ legitimate interests are not protected, then democracy risks morphing into the tyranny of majority. The European bourgeoisie had the same fear in the 19th-20th centuries when voting rights – once a prerogative of the propertied class – were extended to the working class.

They did not oppose democratisation but responded to it with “proportional representation” (PR) electoral systems to prevent “winner-takes-all” politics.

Malaysia – majority fearing democracy

But why should majority fear democracy? Unfortunately, that is the case in Malaysia.

The collective backwardness of the ethnic majority in the colonial period has been used to breed anti-competition values, which is not limited to economic and social-cultural fields, but fundamentally in politics, too.

In July 2011, when Bersih 2.0 called for a mass rally to protest against massive frauds in the Sarawak elections and demanded basic reform before the 13th general election, Perkasa’s Datuk Ibrahim Ali threatened a counter-rally and bloodshed.

Similarly, in Najib’s presence and endorsed by him, martial Art group Silat Lincah vowed to be the third line of nation’s defenders after the military and police.

While short of threatening blood, Umno Youth under the Oxford-educated Khairy Jamaluddin, too, demanded Bersih 2.0 to cancel its rally or it would organise a counter rally of patriots. At the end, Khairy did lead a small protest, with visible presence of Bangladeshi patriots.

For Perkasa, Silat Lincah and Umno Youth, the logic is simple: democratisation will harm the Malays’ political dominance. And to defend this political dominance, threatening another May 13 is legitimate.

It reminds me of Thailand’s yellow shirts who want to abolish elections and fill the Parliament with good people appointed by the palace.

It also reminds me of what Tun Razak publicly told the Commonwealth parliamentarians not long after 1969: “The view we take is that democratic government is the best and most acceptable form of government. So long as the form is preserved, the substance can be changed to suit conditions of a particular country."

Among the changes Razak introduced to change the substance of democracy was the amendment to the Sedition Act, which barred people from questioning constitutional provisions on citizenship, national language, special status of Bumiputera and monarchy.

Until today, Malay ultra-groups want to keep the Sedition Act so that the so-called “sensitive matters” won’t be questioned. But so what if they are questioned, if the Malays, who dominate a majority of the constituencies, want to keep the status quo, how can it be changed democratically?

So, why should Malays be prevented from thinking and making their informed decision, by self-proclaimed defenders of their rights?

Those who fear democratisation are not limited to Umno politicians. PAS has been opposing experimental local elections in Selangor and has never been interested in introducing anything in Kelantan.

Seven years ago, on November 10, 2007, 50,000 marched in central Kuala Lumpur to demand electoral reforms. They helped usher in the political tsunami four months later. The momentum has largely subsided after 2013.

To get out of the political doldrums we are in, we need a mental tsunami to boldly question: 

“Malays are the majority, how can democracy disadvantage them?” – November 10, 2014.

* This column on the '1946 Question' will conclude by year-end. The author appreciates feedback on the entire discussion. He can be reached at [email protected].

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