They’ve already turned RPK, Teresa Kok and Tan Hoon Cheng into matyrs and national heroes for those who believe that BN’s days are due. I wasn’t watching Anwar Ibrahim’s speech on the net and other places this evening, so I don’t know what he’s said. I don’t want to know, really, because I don’t want to hear excuses. He has said that he will take over the government. Not September 16th? I don’t care, I’m not a fetishist obsessed with the significance of dates. I’m just concerned that it (the change in government) happens fast and happens soon.
Should I care how Anwar Ibrahim takes over government? Before the ISA arrests, I used to tell myself that I should, which was why I held over blogging anything about it for some time; after all, if I have doubts about the ethics of crossing over now in this late stage of the game, how am I supposed to justify to myself the fact that history will judge crossing over in the best possible light? I’m tired of the arguments.
Tricia Yeoh has characterised it as a difference between idealist and pragmatist points of view. For those who are bandying about the word “realpolitik”, I think a quick wikipedia or dictionary.com search will disabuse you of using that word too freely. No, I think Tricia’s right, it’s down to mere pragmatism or idealism. The shade of similarity which matters in this debate between the two boils down to consistency.
Anwar Ibrahim has been riding on the platform of a moral ground for dismissing this present government. On the basis of being consistent, it is a relevant question whether it is ethical for one to seize government by means of crossovers. Hence, if it is not ethically problematic to seize government by crossovers, Anwar has remained consistent in his principled message of good governance, accountability and the like.
See, if Anwar was campaigning on grounds of pragmatism, if he didn’t take the moral high ground that had attempted to convince voters to choose which side of the bread should be buttered in their best interests, then he is being absolutely consistent in encouraging crossovers, nevermind the ethics of crossing over.
On the technicalities involved in crossovers, the Bar Council had pointed out that crossovers were endorsed by the government’s own judiciary, always in favour of the government of course. Hence, for the government to now cry foul would be sheer hypocrisy. However, for Pakatan Rakyat to rely on the past actions of the government still begs us to question the morality of crossing over, nevermind the technicalities - after all, if crossing over is found not to be ethical, appealing to the government’s past actions (and its attendant hypocrisy now) is still saying two wrongs make a right.
Enter Pakatan’s “meta” argument which is essentially an appeal to the fundamental idea of what a democracy means, the duties of elected representatives and such. Appeals to all of that is well and good, but what the Treasurer of PKR forgets is that appeals to basic principles (and principles by whose definition of democracy? by whose understanding of elected representation?) begs the question of whether these said principles are the ones held by and understood by the voters themselves.
Let’s be objective, for a moment.
Can you honestly tell me that most Malaysians do not vote for the party but vote according to the representatives? Do Malaysians vote by personality or along coalition lines? Do Malaysians vote on issues or are they really indifferent? The point is, the voter on the street doesn’t think about high-falutin’ ideas like representation and interests except the ones that affect them directly: how am I going to feed my family, how am I going to put my kids through university, how can I prepare them for life, how can I retire comfortably? Is this a deficiency in voter mindset? Who am I to judge? The fact of the matter is, explanations such as these mean little to the man who, for example, voted in a Pakatan Rakyat partner to “give them a chance”.
So appealing to these ideas of what a democracy is and what elected representation means are just ignoring the question: in the way Malaysians have experienced “democracy” in Malaysia, are crossovers ethical?
My point from the whole exercise above is, there are no good reasons for crossovers if one appeals to any sort of ‘meta’ moral argument. There are just no good arguments for static positions when the subsequent consequences aren’t at least minimally foreseeable. All we’re left with are just aspirations which form the basis of our goals.
So to people who agree and disagree with Anwar Ibrahim alike, I’d like to pose a different question: what are the consequences of a crossover and an Anwar Ibrahim government? Yes, consequences. I’m not a pragmatist since a pragmatist examines optimum means to an end without regard for their moral worth or for specific outcomes, and I’m not an idealist since I think rigid principles makes you vulnerable to people who are willing to take advantage of your principles.
(And that’s what I’d like to inform idealists: thieves, robbers and murderers routinely take advantage of your idealism.)
So what are the foreseeable consequences from a Pakatan government? What are the foreseeable consequences without a Pakatan government? Let’s put the consequences for and against a hostile takeover by Anwar Ibrahim to the test against our own aspirations.
It is between those questions that we should focus our energies on.