THE PURPOSE of this essay is not, to present a defensible position. Rather, it is written to disturb the minds of anyone who has decided however strongly that they must participate in Malaysia’s political process*.
* Or I suppose, more broadly, it may apply to anyone who consciously involves themselves in the political process of whichever organisation they inhabit at this time, be it a nation state, a nuclear family, or a for-profit or not-for-profit organisation. The essay does not address those who participate in politics sub-consciously - to bring about an absence of intention is the very operational objective of this essay.
I have for many years abstained from making formalised public statements about my views on Malaysian politics. But today I found myself in need of recreational activity on this long weekend. And then I was quite inspired to write this essay, by several citizens of Facebook (and Malaysia) whose discussions I have been interacting with online. It may be the case that no one reads this, but I am going to write it anyway.
I have for many years abstained from making formalised public statements about my views on Malaysian politics. But today I found myself in need of recreational activity on this long weekend. And then I was quite inspired to write this essay, by several citizens of Facebook (and Malaysia) whose discussions I have been interacting with online. It may be the case that no one reads this, but I am going to write it anyway.
THE NEXUS of these discussions is one article (P0, Disenchanted by blurred lines, some middle-class youths to sit out GE14), which antagonised two acquaintances (A1, A2) to put forth their respective views in posts (P1, P2) on the entitled youths, posts which in turn attracted nu(uuu)merous comments (Cn), largely eliciting empathy for the thrusts of the two posts, that avoiding the polls is a bad thing.
IN DEFENSE OF POLITICAL ACTIVISM these acquaintances A1 and A2 and their views are absolutely to be encouraged. Nothing should stop an individual from identifying with goals and objectives that enable it to find community, and happiness in daily operations.
That being said, a number of the views I have read in the comments, Cn, have caused me grave concern. I have already provided specific engagement with P1 and P2 via comments in their threads, so I won’t engage with P1 or P2 here. Rather abstractly, I will reword the points I raised there, into a brief list of objectionable propositions which I surmised from the engagement with P1, P2, and Cn.
- O1: Citizens are obliged to be active in politics.
- O2: Absence of political activism is necessarily lazy.
- O3: Laziness is irresponsible.
- O4: Irresponsibility is distasteful.
- O5: An individual is more likely to be: inactive in politics, lazy, irresponsible, or distasteful, because she or she is young.
“Citizens are obliged to be active in politics.”
No, they are not. Except in countries where it is mandatory for citizens to engage in politics, it is quite often the case that citizens are given the right to be active, but not the obligation to participate in the governance of their societies. This is the case in Malaysia - there are no laws making it illegal to refrain from political activism, including any refrainment from voting.
You may find this distasteful in and of itself. You may feel that citizens ought to defend their neighbours from evil parties. You may even feel that in a completely neutral environment, citizens are obliged to improve the wellbeing of their neighbours. But these are your personal inclinations, ungoverned by law.
You may then turn to letters and verses which describe the spiritual character of the nation we inhabit, and infer from such passages that the spirit of citizenship obliges citizens to behave a certain way even if the letter of the law does not. But that is your spiritual conviction - until it becomes explicit law, for each citizen, there is no compulsion in political engagement.
“Absence of political activism is necessarily lazy.”
Well frankly, in many cases, political apathy is due to laziness. But this isn’t necessarily the case. It is easily conceivable that a person may be very industrious, hardworking, diligent, alla zeitgeist: GRITTY, in many fields of endeavour… while at the same time he or she simply doesn’t give a damn about the welfare of this country, its citizens, or its abstract future as an institution.
I am such a person. Personally, I find local political discourse generally unmotivating. It lacks sophistication; it lacks strategic elegance; it lacks decisive parsimony; it bores me; I find it is full of outrage - I have a general distaste for outrage, and even as I am outraged by the points I am objecting to here, I am also outraged at my own outrage… and the only reason I am investing time in writing this is for amusement, to stimulate and exercise my thoughts in order to try and stay healthy, as a point of mental conditioning.
I think ultimately, what differentiates political activists (and I consider anyone who participates in the democratic elections an activist citizen) and non-activists, is a fundamental difference in the degree of interest/affection that each has for the issues that surround us.
- Some people want to watch the world burn.
- Some people don't want to, but don't mind watching.
- Others can't stand to watch it burn.
Each to their own tribe. Tribes will bicker. Some tribes will die. Let’s find out, together. We don’t really have a choice about that - the future, indeterminable as it is, remains inevitable.
“Laziness is irresponsible.”
Suppose we have a person, who is convinced that they should be active in politics. This person is furthermore of very specific political convictions: for example, he or she believes that Barisan Nasional is the child of the devil. (Caveat: I am not that person.) However, he or she then decides to do nothing about it… to not vote, to not campaign, to not engage. He or she believes that those activities would be a waste of energy. He or she believes that the energy conserving alternative is preferable. He or she, consciously, decides to be lazy. Is this irresponsible?
Not necessarily. It could be irresponsible, but it would be pre-mature to simply judge this to be irresponsibility - in fact the definition of what counts as irresponsibility is, itself, fraught with complexities.
While I personally do not view Barisan Nasional to be the child of the devil, I do think that Barisan Nasional is not very good at what it is supposed to do - which is to deliver the welfare of all Malaysian citizens, and not just the citizens who voted for it. With this view in mind, for almost two decades, I have also favoured (i) compliance with the hegemony, or (ii) all out war, over (iii) engagement with the electoral process. While I am so far unpersuaded about going to war, I don't think that Barisan Nasional plays fair enough to warrant fair play resistance or engagement.
It has been a lonely perspective.
But I don’t think it is an irresponsible perspective. While I remain quite lazy about political involvement, I have allocated my time to the pursuit of a large enough stockpile of resources with which I could then go to war with against Barisan Nasional in the future. I do this because this I believe that this is an economically optimised strategy.
It is not a secret strategy, and it may not be a viable one, but it is nevertheless one that I am fully responsible for. At any point, I can be locked up, or cement barrelled, or castrated, otherwise disfigured, or however more threatened by our gangster Government, simply at its whim. I have known this to be a practical reality for years, and daily readiness in mind and body is simply what it means to be responsible.
As they say in programming, you eat your own dog food. You can be lazy, as long as you accept responsibility for it.
“Irresponsibility is distasteful.”
Let’s return to the list of abstract complaints. Again, hinging on the vagaries of how irresponsibility is to be defined, we turn now to a consideration of a truly irresponsible individual. What would such an individual look like?
So say, one believes in activism, believes that Barisan Nasional is doing a shit job of running the country, believes (rationally, or irrationally) that the alternative parties are convincing alternatives, yet just prefers not to vote because one couldn’t be arsed to register, and go to the polls, and make decision, and write it down on the ballot, and all that. Let’s just assume now, for the purpose of discussion, that that we can call this irresponsibility. Again, we now assume that this is a legitimate use of the word ‘irresponsible’.
Must it be distasteful?
Absolutely not.
Actually in practice, it must be distasteful for some people. Many people aren’t capable of manipulating their preferences. Some are. But the fact that there are some who can choose not to be affected by it means that in practice, it is not all people who find that irresponsibility is distasteful.
At this point in the essay, the conversation could be expanded exponentially in two directions - (i) in elaborating the humanistic structures and sentiments of those for whom distaste is an inevitable phenomenon, and (ii) in returning to a systematic analysis of what it really means for someone to be “irresponsible.”
Very irresponsibly, at this point, we shall attempt neither endeavour. Is it not responsible, if we simply have not the resources to do so at this juncture?
In any event, it is certainly not distasteful. Unless you feel insulted, in which case we can’t help you, but I don’t feel insulted, so it can’t necessarily be the case that irresponsibility is insulting. Eh?
“An individual is more likely to be: inactive in politics, lazy, irresponsible, or distasteful, because she or she is young.”
This position is not even worth addressing in great detail because it is such a common fallacy. Empirically, a stringent definition for each adjective above might yield sufficient preparation for survey on the truth of this proposition, according to the given definitions. Otherwise, it will be sufficient to note that throughout history the old have made a pastime of deriding the young, and that objectively, neither of them really has any greater foothold upon the arc of history than the other. All remain subject to time, given unto us, upon which we simply deride.
Further Remarks
Now you are quite welcome to object to any of the ideas presented above, reasonably, or unreasonably, emotionally, or unemotionally. The ideas are not presented as logically coherent propositions that are empirically falsifiable, and so you may find any or all of the following within them: logical contradictions, an absence of falsifiability, or total and complete falsification by empirical fact. That’s for you to think about. I just wanted to put the points out there. I don’t feel obliged to make more effort than that, given that this is a recreational pursuit, and not a job I am paid to do.
Identification of Author
My name is Hwa Yang Jerng, citizen number 831031-14-5577 of the nation of Malaysia. I became eligible to vote in 2004, and registered to vote before the 2008 elections, with the express intention of remaining absent from the polls. I have never voted in a Malaysian election. The ideas presented in this essay are of my own contrivance, and do not represent the orientation or opinion of any other individuals, human or corporate, with whom I am associated. I, and I alone, bear full responsibility for any damage, annoyance, butthurt, or physical damage that incurs on Earth which follows from essays, such as this.
No comments :
Post a Comment