I think some of you watch CNN on a regular basis, and some of you that do will have come across the program, “Crossfireâ€. Crossfire is a debate program that has now been canceled mostly due to the appearance of Jon Stewart of the Daily Show on Crossfire.
Jon Stewart took the hosts to task and turned the tables on both hosts who purported to represent sides of the Democrat/Republican dichotomy. It’s a real smackdown, and you can watch it on Youtube, here:
For a country in the grip of policy defined by either Democrats or Republicans, it was refreshing to watch an ‘outsider’ speak the truth: that politics or policies defined along party lines reinforces the existence of both parties beyond questions of whether such policies are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
In fact, partisanship in a country essentially defined by these two parties creates a false dilemma: if you support tax cuts and smaller government, vote Republican, and vice versa. There is no middle ground or alternative: Jon Stewart’s point is, the issues far outweigh the preponderance of partisan alternatives.
I’ve been wondering if the same problem prevails in Malaysia. I’ve been trying to figure out what Barisan Nasional actually stands for, and I can’t figure it out – perhaps from a lack of knowledge. I’m just wondering if the problem is that Malaysians really don’t give two hoots about issues rather than personalities.
Badawi, if I recall correctly, was voted in with a huge majority riding on an implicit promise to dismantle Mahathirism. But what, really, is Mahathirism?
I’m sure political scientists can provide a nice explication of what that term means, but words that evoke ‘Mahathirism’ to me are: ‘industry’, ‘urbanization’, ‘affirmative action’, ‘positive discrimination’, ‘anti-colonial nationalism’, feudal ‘rentier mentality’, all rolled up and mixed in with Mahahir’s own unique personality and others I’m sure I’ll recall if I had some time.
(Complicate matters a bit by saying, maybe, that UMNO – UMNO Baru – was merely an extension of Mahathir. I think I say ‘was’ because, nominally speaking, Mahathir doesn’t control UMNO today. Or maybe I should say ’still is’, because as an extension of Mahathir, the characteristics of obscurity, feudalism and corruption still hold true – can these terms be construed as also forming part of what I understand as ‘Mahathirism’?)
When I look at the terms I’ve set out for myself, I don’t see issues, I see plans. That is, they are responses to issues, I think. Economic disparities between ethnic groups? Suggest: positive discrimination. A lack of a Malaysian identity divorced from former colonial masters? Suggest: a systematic replacement of all things ‘foreign’.
Just random thoughts.
Comments (2)
great clip.
sometimes i feel that everyone should just stfu and solve issues and problems at hand, you know, whatever works, get it done NOW regardless your background, political or otherwise.
easy said la.
that’s what’s bothered me for some time now. pointing out where the government is flawed is one thing, but actually being able to do something about it is quite another kettle of fish, i think.
in countries with populations which have a greater awareness of advocacy, this might be possible - and by this i mean they are able to lobby for change and see results. i don’t think this is possible in malaysia because - despite what Badawi says - we don’t have a government that is representative by mandate.
i know, i’m talking out of my ass here because we do vote, and therefore there is, clearly a mandate. what i mean is, the mandate itself is superficial. if we look at ‘mandate’ as ‘choice’ or ‘choosing to adopt the policies of a party’, then voting is a matter of choosing between alternative means to deal with the issues of our country.
that’s the way i look at it. i suppose the question in our effectively one-party country is: do we really want to adopt all the party’s policies - heck, do we even know what they are? if we don’t agree with some of the policies, what is the recourse? the only answer i can come up with is action through civil society - the people who will, if empowered, actually get off their asses and do something about the problems in this country. I blogged about this here some time back, thinking about this problem. it’s not for the want of trying where these NGOs are concerned, i’m certain - it’s the clampdown on any activity which threatens to make the government actually work.
i can’t think of any other way to circumvent the tight grip the government has over not just policy, but how malaysians view issues.