The beauty of division

We all grow up with the teaching that “united we stand, divided we fall”. In this patriotic season, it would be blasphemous and seditious to sing praise for the beauty of division. But why should patriotism be exempt from examination and reflection? And really, can democracy exist without division? Is the love of the country good if it is not grounded in the love of democracy?

I have argued before that diversity needs not cause harm if it cleavage pattern is cross-cutting rather than reinforcing. The idea behind that is cross-cutting cleavage will divide society into many small groups so that they cannot gang up to form a few – in the worst case, only two – large groups to go into deadly confrontation. Let’s push this reasoning further.

Now, what if society has only one main group? What if everyone in the society just thinks alike? Is this inherently objectionable?

Some friends will indeed immediately think of North Korea or Nazi Germany. Given the diverse and self-interested human nature, everyone thinking alike is simply not natural. That can only be the outcome of some totalitarian mind control or intense socialization.

But what if the society happens to have a vast majority who think alike, and they don’t force the minority to conform, but they merely make the decision on the basis of majority rule?

Such low degree of social pluralism will basically rule out multiparty democracy – you may have democratic process, but you won’t have multiparty competition?

So, what is wrong with monopartism if that is the choice of the majority? If the will of majority cannot prevail, then is there democracy anymore?

The second question is actually very easy to answer: we need not do away democracy to prevent an undesirable outcome. We just have to stir democracy from pursuing the undesirable out. Analogously, marriage may lead to domestic violence but one needs not reject marriage to prevent domestic violence.

The first question is actually about majoritarianism, the idea that majority should be able to decide for the whole of population, and that the will of many is the highest value of public decision making.

Now I would like to draw what was said some 227 years ago, by James Madison, one of America’s founding fathers. Then, America just won her independence war four years ago and the 13 ex-colonies were debating whether to have a large country with a strong national government.

Madison was deeply worried about the peril of factions. He did not mean factionalism as most of us would understand it. By “faction”, he meant “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Madison actually left “the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” undefined, except the protection of citizen’s rights. Like other liberals of his time, he was particularly concerned about property rights and deeply worried about the potential demand of property distribution by the have-nots.

But beyond the protection of property right, one may see Madison’s legitimate fear of the tyranny of majority. Simply put, Madison dreaded the thought that “if we have the number, we shall make decision for everyone”. 

Living in Malaysia today, I do not know how many do not share Madison’s fear, not least with the factions of righteousness.  And many of those who share this fear may secretly or even openly wish for a benevolent despot, a dictator who might protect social or economic pluralism at the expense of political freedom, someone like Al-Sisi in Egypt or Mahathir when he was in full control.

This is where Madison had a clear mind. He saw “liberty is to faction what air is to fire”. As one should not deprive animals of air to avoid fire, one should not abolish liberty to prevent faction.

Madison proposed two remedies against “faction”: first, representative democracy (what he called “republic”) in place of direct democracy (what he called “democracy”) so that popular but tyrannical ideas may be filtered out in a smaller group of deliberation; second, larger rather than smaller countries.

On the danger of smaller countries, Madison argued “the smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.”

Madison did not use the words “unity” and “division” here. But he was clearly against political unity that suppresses freedom and rights. 

Placed in his historical context, Madison was actually arguing for a federated America rather than 13 small colonies, so that tyrannical unity at the state level might be checked by liberating division at the national level.  

This was actually written as what was known “The Federalist No. 10”, the 10^th instalment of a series of commentaries called the Federalist Papers, under the pseudonym “Publius” shared by Madison and two other thinkers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

Next Tuesday would be Malaysia’s 51^st birthday and two days later, our former colonial master, United Kingdom will have her own existence tested in Scotland’s referendum for independence.

Many separatists in the world – the Malaysian ones included – are watching anxiously and hope eagerly that Scotland will vote for independence to set another example for disintegration of larger polities.

I understand how many Sabahans and Sarawakians yearn for independence from Malaysia, not least because of the marginalisation the two states suffer.

In objecting to the Malaysia project, Indonesia’s founding president Sukarno dismissed it as the change of colonial office from London to Kuala Lumpur. I wish we can say loudly that Sukarno is wrong but I am really not sure.

I believe in the right for secession – what is a marriage if one cannot seek divorce even after suffering abuse? But I don’t believe that secession is always good.

Secession may simply lead to worse elite capture, which was the case of most ex-Soviet republics in Central Asia and Transcaucasia. Does anyone believe that people in eastern Ukraine would have more freedom becoming citizens of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic?

What we need is democracy and freedom. When you are free, you can choose marriage or singlehood. On the other hand, if you remain unfree, would marriage or singlehood make a real difference?

I dedicate this commentary to my beloved Malaysia. May she survive as long as the human race. But most of all, may her federalism be guided by freedom and not suppression.

I hope my brothers and sisters in Sabah and Sarawak – likewise those in the peninsula – will continue to fight for a more democratic, diverse and decentralised Malaysia.

Malaysia cannot be well if Sabah and Sarawak are not well. Likewise, Sabah and Sarawak cannot be well if Malaysia is not well.

The well-being of the Federation and that of the Borneo states are not only simply inseparable but reinforcing. Fighting for one, you would inevitably be fighting for the other.

Those who demand a fair deal for Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia, you are not separatists. You are the real federalists, in the Madisonian sense. – September 12, 2014.

*Announcement: in conjunction with the 51^st anniversary of Malaysia, a conference on “Federalism in Malaysia: Design and Practice” will be held on September 15 and 16 at Trader’s Hotel, Penang. For details, please visit www.penanginstitute.org/federalism.

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