A forgotten older and enduring ideal

Was the Bersih agenda wrong? The agenda was simply the call for the EC to conduct its business cleanly and fairly. That to my mind is a legitimate and acceptable agenda. This government responded by demonizing Bersih. This was all part of the boxed-in mentality of the ruling government to prevent any mass movement snowballing into a popular movement. When it responded the way it did, the very dreaded effect it wanted to avoid, came into effect. Because public and international opinion made Bersih into the impression of a popular movement rather that a localized event it should have been.

Well, that's what you get if the government is reactive by nature rather that proactive in a thoughtful way. It doesn't want to engage Bersih preferring the bully tactics so liked by people like Ibrahim Ali.

When the marchers took the streets in a peaceful manner, it took a life of its own. It wasn't any more about Ambiga or Anwar or whoever else. They may have set the tone and did some synchronization, but once out there, the people called the shots.

This I think is what the government doesn't understand and because of that it responded the only way, a government believing in its own infallibility and invincibility behaves.

In the UK, our PM said that street demonstrations are not the way to form a government. He is stating what is already universally accepted nowadays. In Malaysia, no right thinking people harbors any thought about securing governmental power, through undemocratic or unconstitutional methods. Indeed we quarrel a lot to ensure the sanctity and integrity of a democracy be preserved. UMNO people went to court to seek a declaration that the 1987 UMNO elections were subverted. A new UMNO was formed in 1988. From then on, UMNO could never qualify to have practiced real democracy.

Malayan communism was ended half a century ago. Because the idea of forming a government through armed insurrection could never be accepted. Plus, there were a lot other complications such as religion and ethnic composition. Government is formed through the democratic way- through free and fair elections. We all do it through fair and clean elections, we are all democrats.

The statement which the PM raises and which is fortified further by the solemn declaration of the DPM when he said no more street rallies- raises important points.

Why does a democratic system still make possible for other forms of collective political expression take place? If elections sort out all issues, if a democratically elected government is supposed to end all issues, there wouldn't be a need for other forms of collective political expression, would there?

The response towards Bersih has been handled badly. So the government becomes the target of international censorship and sharp criticisms. The issue has not died down in our own country. Bersih has increased awareness among citizens on the importance of having clean and fair elections. That's a simple demand. The circuitous responses by the EC and government supporters will surely widen the divide between voters and the ruing government.

Behind the whole issue of Bersih trying to prop up mass awareness and the government's trenchant and violent response is the issue of a forgotten older ideal. Which is: that the power of all authorities exercising governmental functions ought to be limited by long run rules which nobody has the power to alter or abrogate in the service of particular ends.

How does a government that has forsaken this older universal principle rule the country then? It rules mainly through the stalwarts system by ensuring those who hold the levers of authority are its obedient servants. The judiciary?- an emasculated and pliant one, the chief law officer?-their man; the chief of police? –One who does its biddings, the chairman of the elections commission? - Its chief apologist. The chief secretary- maybe the one who will stall the swearing in of a new legitimate government come the next GE.