The Malaysian media encourages
the misguided view that differences of opinion among members of political
parties are unhealthy. Differing views are often portrayed as ‘squabbling’ or
‘spats’ or ‘rifts’ between members of the fraternity and indicative of weakness
and disunity.
The contrary is true. Firstly, the ability to accept differing
opinions is a sign of maturity in political parties or coalitions. Every person
is unique, and that uniqueness includes our worldviews and of course, our
opinions on matters. Even people in the most intimate of relationships do not
agree on everything. Lovers fight. Married couples argue.
Some of us are more
opinionated (or if you prefer, stubborn) than others, and when it comes to
political parties... well you can expect a much higher concentration of strong-willed,
passionate people who have their own take on things. The important thing is
that the disagreements are in pursuit of a higher cause. The point of debate
goes beyond demolishing the other person’s arguments and proving yours are
better. Constructive debate and discourse which involves different viewpoints
often results in a compromise that is agreeable to most. And isn’t that the
point of a democracy - to reflect the views of the majority?
But even when the middle path is not taken, and when different
factions with irreconcilable differences emerge, it can be for the better. Take
for example the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. The
business-friendly Republicans believe people should be as free as possible
to pursue their own best interests and government should play a minimal role in
the economy. The Democrats have a broader social agenda and believe government
is crucial in creating a fairer society.
Many would be surprised to learn that these polar-opposites today
share the same roots in the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas
Jefferson. Differences of opinion within led to a schism in the 19th
century. In the short term, this split certainly was destructive - the
Democratic-Republican party ceased to exist. But in the long term, it created two powerful parties
that now dominate politics in the richest country in the world.
Disagreements still rumble internally within the
parties. Just consider the race to be the Republican candidate for president of
the United States. Rick Santorum, the previous front-runner who recently pulled out, is a very conservative Christian
focused on social issues. Mitt Romney, the present front-runner, was a
successful venture capitalist and presents a more moderate face. All the candidates
have hotly debated, and indeed, attacked each other. But the internal
competition creates a dynamic in which the strongest, most ‘winnable’ candidate
survives, behind which the entire party then closes ranks.
Notice the difference between these mature parties and the
immature, insecure ones in our country? The losing candidate is not demonised
as a traitor to the party, ostracised or expelled. Neither does he storm off if
a huff or retreat to sulk in a corner. He and his followers are absorbed back
into the fold and continue the fight for the greater good as the party sees it.
The different opinions expressed during the campaign are not viewed as
detrimental or bad for the party. Rather, they are recognised for what they
are: just different viewpoints. And the winning candidate may well absorb some
of these viewpoints.
 |
| Rick Santorum. |
This brings us to the very important point that successful
political parties recognise constructive dissent as not only natural, but also
necessary for rejuvenation. The Democratic and
Republican parties in the United States have now been in existence for
nearly two hundred years. The fact that they are still relevant is testimony to
their ability to absorb and accept new ideas and evolve to meet the changing
needs and demands of the people they seek to govern. New ideas, and change, by
definition, require freedom to dissent and debate.
The real problem is not dissent. It is suppressing dissent. UMNO
for example, has not seen a contest for its presidency for a quarter of a
century - ever since the titanic battle in 1987 between Tunku Razaleigh and Dr
Mahathir which lead to Tengku Razaleigh leaving UMNO to form Semangat 46 and a
sycophantic culture developing in the new UMNO. Dr Mahathir recently admitted
that UMNO faces a scarcity of competent leaders at the top[1]. The shortage is so severe that the UMNO now cannot
find a woman capable enough to helm the Ministry of Women, Family and Community
Development.
Take this test yourself. Name the vibrant young leaders in UMNO,
MCA and the MIC, the bulwarks of conformity and ‘unity’. Next, name the vibrant
young leaders in DAP and PAS[2],
the parties often portrayed by the mainstream media as riven by disagreements.
Differing opinions are simply a natural democratic process, are in
the bigger picture constructive, and a mark of a mature, strong parties. So the
next time the mainstream media highlights another intra-party ‘spat’ within
Pakatan Rakyat, think of it as Ginseng- it is bitter-sweet but is natural and
rejuvenating!
[1] Dr M: Field
talented outsiders. The Star, 29 Mar 2012.
[2] We
deliberately avoid mentioning PKR as it is a relatively young party.
Originally published on REFSA, an independent think tank's website.
