Democracy: Chicago Style.

The Washington Post Editorial

IN THE PAST two years, Malaysia, which has been a one-party state since it gained independence in 1957, has made remarkable strides toward becoming a democracy. That it has done so is mostly due to the efforts and political talent of one man -- Anwar Ibrahim.

So the fact that Mr. Anwar went on criminal trial last week should deeply concern the democratic world. The outcome could determine whether one of Asia's most economically successful countries preserves its stability and embraces long-overdue reforms.

Six years later, the conviction was overturned by a court, and Mr. Anwar resumed his political career -- this time as an open champion of democracy in Malaysia and other Muslim countries. If led by Mr. Anwar, it would have a fair chance of winning the next national election in 2013.That's one reason it's suspicious that, three months after the state election victories in 2008, Mr. Anwar was once again accused of sodomy. Another is that his young male accuser was seen with aides of Najib Razak, who is now prime minister; Mr. Anwar says he has evidence that the accuser met with the prime minister and his wife shortly before making his charge. A third is that the case has been transferred from criminal court to a higher court whose judges are closely linked to the ruling party. But it could just as easily provoke a backlash against Mr. Najib or street demonstrations that could destabilize the country. That's why the Obama administration and other Western governments interested in stability in Asia should make clear that the imprisonment of Mr. Anwar would be a blatant human rights violation -- and not in Malaysia's interest.

What do Anwar Ibrahim and the Washington Post have in common? No, it's not that Anwar Ibrahim is America's Trojan horse here in Malaysia. What they have in common is a kindred spirit with one notable American- the great community organizer, Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky leant the fundamentals of ridicule- infuriate your opponents, goad them into reacting to your advantage. Hence Anwar Ibrahim taunts and goads the media so they react according to his plan and uses the reaction to his advantage. Washington Post ridicules our judiciary, judicial system and our democracy so that we react as overgrown adolescents.

One rule of the Bully tactics:  Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.  You can kill them with this. No country can obey its own rules. Ridicule them over this. You know we can never obey our own rules absolutely. America does this all the time. You accuse others of doing this and they can only react with pleading innocence and pulling their hair. Yes, others who do not adopt American style democracy are a potential enemy. America doesn't obey its rules. It knows this and therefore uses the same to bully others.

 

This rule carries within it another rule:  Ridicule. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.  It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. So Washington Post ridicules Malaysia's rule of law. It ridicules Malaysia's judiciary and judicial system

This is what the Washington Post is doing. It's another form of America's bully tactics- another form of Chicago style mob intimidation. Do a democracy American style or take all the risks. Our first response is, this is quite extraordinary. It's a departure by a country that espouses the rule of law. The only contradiction being, it often does so by denigrating the rule of law and universal rights adopted by other countries.

Indeed as America often does, it subverts other people's democracy saying that others democracy hasn't grown up or are always in arrested development. Hence American intervention is necessary or that adoption of America's definition of what democracy is is necessary.

So America wants Malaysia to adopt its version of what democracy is. It wants Malaysians to keep their hands off Anwar Ibrahim. Do that even if Anwar Ibrahim may have committed a crime.

Just because the US does not like the way Malaysia has handled and is handling Anwar Ibrahim, is the worst reason for taking a moral high ground against Malaysia. How is the US now going to use its moral authority as a crusader of universal values and rule of law, if its first resort when it confronts unpalatable decisions, is to subvert other people's legitimate way of adopting the rule of law? In Malaysia, our adoption of the rule of law is saying that Anwar Ibrahim must face the same judiciary and the same judicial system which all other's face. We don't have selective rule of law or selective judiciary. It isn't perfect, but it's no reason to spurn it entirely only because Anwar Ibrahim doesn't like it.

How do we react to these kinds of remarks? I suppose, we can do what is expected from a lesser standard deputy minister such as the Malaysian Indian deputy minister whose party hasn't got any seats and is bickering who's the boss. At least Sivaji can claim he is a boss. The common retort would be: Don't meddle into our internal affairs. This is the best counter argument overgrown adolescents could muster.

The Americans wouldn't bat an eye over such kind of childish admonitions. Asking them not to meddle didn't stop them from getting Noriega, didn't stop them from invading Iraq, and didn't stop them from going into Afghanistan.

Let us dissect the premises on which American public opinion is based. Take the article by the Washington Post.

So if the Americans have it their way, Malaysian history began in 2008. That first sentence betrayed inherent bias- that the advent of democracy started when PR won 82 seats in the Malaysian parliament in 2008. To Americans therefore, democracy has always been associated when a minority or disadvantaged group on whom they invested their sympathies and support, wins in a contest. In other words, a country is democratic only when America says so. This attitude stems of course from the fact that America is the most powerful country in the world and it gets what it wants. It now wants Malaysia's democracy to be shaped according to what is defined by America.

It goes without saying, that America judges democracy in Malaysia in terms of the ebb and flow of PR especially Anwar Ibrahim, the advisor of PKR. It thus ignores the fact that, the BN is still the majority party that has been invited, under the terms of the Malaysian constitution, to form the government. Already the first sentence fails the litmus test of accepting the rule of law. The Washington Post has already determined that Anwar Ibrahim is innocent even before the court makes its verdict.

Then, there is this spurious argument that associates Anwar Ibrahim as responsible for bringing democracy. How can any reasonable arrive at this association? It's such as sweeping statement whose hollowness is unsupported by elaborations.

On what does the democracy in American rest? It rests on the constitution; it rests on the bill of Rights. It doesn't depend on Obama. Associating Anwar with the rise of Malaysian democracy is like saying, democracy in America begun only last year. Because in that year, America sheds its intrinsic racial bias and white superiority by endorsing Obama who is Black to become the first black American president. America therefore stays democratic if and only if it allows blacks to continue becoming president of America.

America stays democratic simply because it allows competing and contending arguments and ideas. It is also the same here in Malaysia. We allow contending ideas and arguments. That has been the reason why Anwar and his friends won 82 seats in 2008.

Anwar is an active participant and beneficiary of democracy in Malaysia. W may not have all the features normally identified as American style democracy- queer sex protected under some of the amendments of the American Bill of Rights. The fact that Anwar is brought before the court, defended by a team of lawyers, disputing the charge laid down by the prosecution, presided by a judge at the bench is our comparative answer to the American 5^th amendment. Our system may not be an exact carbon copy of the 5^th Amendment because we have evolved in accordance to our own circumstances.

The Washington post's starts off with the premise, that if any country is to qualify as a democratic country, it must replicate what American judicial system does. That insistence actually hides the arrogance of a superior power- that its laws and systems must prevail and take precedence over all others.