MARCH 4 — The two democracies most familiar to us are the two-party states of the US and the UK.
We have the continual jostling between the Democrats and the Republicans in the US, and principally between the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. Most of the world has little to no idea of their other political parties because US presidents and UK prime ministers have rotated between only those two parties for hundreds of years.
The US Senate control is perpetually a toss-up between Republicans and Democrats. In fact, the current strength is Republican 54, Democrats 44, and Independents two.
We also have countries that appear democratic but function as one-party states.
China is the only thriving one-party state.
China’s political system
Eric X Li, a venture capitalist and political scientist based in Shanghai, has been articulately arguing that China’s political system, which we generally describe as authoritarian, beats the Western democracy model, specifically the US.
He has issues with democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development.
Eric lauds China’s system, which allows immediate response. He argues that in the 80s the leadership permitted wide-scale participation in the country’s politics, which helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went overboard and resulted in the Tianamen Square incident.
The uprising was decisively put down. A heavy price was paid but the resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy as the second largest in the world.
Eric said: “The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.”
He explained the grading and evaluation of public officials and political leadership based on adaptability, meritocracy and legitimacy, starting with 900,000 people sieved to 600,000, to 40,000 and finally to the top echelon of 300.
President Xi Jinping, for instance, started as a village manager 30 years ago. By the time he made the Politburo, he had managed areas of a total population of 150 million people and a combined GDP of US$1.5 trillion (RM5.44 trillion).
Eric has a very engaging personality and presents his arguments rather compellingly. If one is from an “abused” democracy, one can buy his proposition lock, stock, barrel and the whole vineyard!
As for me, I think democracy is the better model for nations without a 5,000-year civilisation. In countries where democracy didn’t work too well, it is not the system. It is mostly despots abusing the system.
I fully subscribe to the China system, exclusively for China. They have targeted a benevolent autocracy and there is more than enough history to learn about the entire universe’s dos and don’ts. The head of government being capped at a 10-year tenure is a darn good start.
And yes, it helps that the Communist Party of China (CPC) is identified as the custodian institution with trustees (Politburo) scrupulously selected. The fact that “princelings” are a dying breed enhances ownership by the ordinary citizens.
Our two-party state
Perhaps it was Tun Abdul Razak’s statesman’s ideals that made him the shrewd political strategist!
He felt a young nation could not afford too much time on politics and gave us the Barisan Nasional (BN), where all communities have a voice.
The indispensable socio-economic re-engineering programme had to be rolled out and must be supported by an overwhelming majority to work.
This resulted in the BN and the New Economic Policy (NEP) having a “dream come true” start.
Another stunner — on May 31, 1974, he established diplomatic ties with China. That was the “one fell swoop” which blurred the fangs and horns of CPC in the eyes of Southeast Asia.
Razak’s renowned thrift is best testimony that he thinks himself as chief trustee, i.e. the nation’s coffers is entrusted to his government’s safekeeping and not ownership. It is not his government’s, nor the government party’s to spend freely.
Malaysia exercised a one-party state democracy rather well for some 25 years. Then the initially heralded 20-year NEP became a never-ending policy. And how did a policy qualification — Bumiputra, become like the official “superior” race?
To my contemporaries and me, the simple answer is — we lost Umno.
It became exclusive, and the BN components failed to rein in the dominant partner. As a result, we feel a “loss of ownership.”
For a two-party state to truly work, the electorate must have two equally good choices. Both can formulate sharp policies on good governance and voters have to decide on their key personalities, whom they think can best deliver on those promises.
Our civil service, including the uniformed branches, would naturally be transformed into top-notch as competency reigns over loyalty.
Governments can change hands.
But my concern is the lack of luminaries from one side. The base requisite of a working two-party state is not evident.
Postscript
China’s political system is the only one for China, like democracy is for the rest of the world. No other nation on this earth has gone through all political turmoil known to men several times over — which can afford them to practise the China system.
My latest letdown is that Umno Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin supported the prosecutor-by-fiat’s roadshow.
He is way too good for this level of politics. I think he can match toe-to-toe any leader of his generation anywhere in the world.
I wish he would just rely on his immense talent and be the best political leader he can be, sans the “politicking.”
Khairy could start with showing his colleagues how to be terrific trustees.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
