Is a democracy, often defined as governance of the people, by the people and for the people, ever realistically possible here on earth? Are not all our definitions of democracy only postulates in the world of ideas and ideals? Is a reasonable and applied version which approximates the ideal even plausible?
I suppose, the clearest and most visible examples of an applied model of ideal democracy are the ones we see in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. None of them are perfect, but surely they are least relatively better examples of democracy in the world today. Now, why do I say this?
The other day, I attended the second in a series of the Ibni Khaldun Lectures; jointly organised by the Center for Public Policy Studies and the Malaysia Think Tank on the topic: Islam: A Blessings to Malaysians?
At that discourse, two different speakers from quite different faiths said that both in England and the United States, individual Muslims could experience the greatest comfort in practicing their faith than anywhere else. That was a very revealing statement. They were talking about real life experiences and statements of individual Muslims. And, mind you, these two countries do not claim to be Muslim or Christian countries either; although both are still battling internal concepts related to culture and tradition of the Christian faith in their public spaces of life. It was these testimonials which made me ponder about the real meaning of democracy; as I reflected and wrote in my last column, regarding this [flawed democracy] that we currently experience in Malaysia.
Premised on the concept of a flawed and non-representative concept of democracy which we practice, is it even theoretically plausible to ask and ponder whether a true democracy is even possible in Malaysia. Why? Why not?
What ideals would such a true democracy embody? Would the individual freedom of faith be part and parcel of such a democracy? Or, would only such freedoms as defined and confined only by one version of religious interpretation prevail in Malaysia; where even individual Muslims feel confined and constrained? Would our “concept of the religion” as emphasised by our Federal Constitution make and give the privilege of interpretive bias to one religious view as opposed to more universal ideas and ideals of other religions as well; as protected and preserved by the same Constitution? Were sectarian interpretations the original intent? Would the current particular religious’ interpretations of the dominant religious group “constrain the practice and faith of all other religions and interpretations?”
Would that make for a contrary reading of what is promised in the Article 11 of our Federal Constitution? What kind of a democracy are we really practicing, if we cannot discuss and resolve these issues without emotion and false rhetoric? What democracy do we practice, we if we cannot recognize the rights and privileges of another group; which the same constitution guarantees for all under it?
The debate over ‘Allah’
Does not the Federal Constitution reign supreme for all in Malaysia? Or, is the correct interpretation and review of the Federal Constitution focused only on the Malay-Muslim view of life and living, at the exclusion of every other worldview? In fact, all of these nuances and rhetoric are reflected in the now renewed debate over the use of the word “Allah” as the personal name of reference to our concepts of the Almighty. If God is really God, call him by every other name and his name shall remain as who He is. None of us humans can mar his character or change his personality, by the change of his name; regardless of what we call Him. We can never anthropomorphize God! But, we can surely be guilty of personalising and privatising the name of God, by interpretive bias.
Moreover, the reference for God as Allah is a pre-Islamic idea used by Arabs within their culture and context. Therefore, when the Ministry of Home Affairs “directs” the Catholic Herald not to use this “Arab name for God” in our spoken Bahasa Malaysia, what are they really saying? Are we not really saying that the operative interpretation of “all other religions and their practices” also comes under the ambit of the “ketuanan Melayu thinking?” Is this not also the case of claiming an overriding interpretive authority in an area not even privileged by the Constitution? Is this not maybe one of the reasons that many Muslims in Malaysia may also feel constrained by the particular and sectarian interpretation of the practices of mainstream Islam in Malaysia?
Likewise, to the bumiputera Christian in Malaysia, it appears that only some mainstream Malays in Malaysia have the right to use the Arabic and Pre-Islamic concept for God and thereby establish a copyright that even the Constitution does not privilege. But, herein lies our flawed thinking and worldview, which not even the Arabs are saying, as I understand from my Arab Christian friends that they have used the word ‘Allah’ for a long time before even the Muslim or even Jewish and Christians have claimed. It was used by people of that region from since the time of Father Abraham. And, as we all do know, Abraham is pre-Jewish, pre-Christian and pre-Islamic! Maybe we need to be able to differentiate culture from faith; then issues of faith do not cause us to stumble over cultural practices and thereby make them political problems. This is when true spirituality can be distinguished from external religion.
As a young boy, one of my favorite carols was the “Twelve Days of Christmas.” In the Western tradition of the Christmas culture, it is said that the 12 days of Christmas starts with Dec 25 and ends on the 12th day after; which is supposed to be the beginning of Epiphany in the Church calendar and usually begins on Jan 5. I actually learnt this when my son typed carol name into Google and found the real meaning behind the 12 days of the carol. It was a fascinating learning for both of us!
This mood of Christmas can be seen and felt now all over the world; even if it is mainly in its commercial expression of “the season to be jolly.” In theological response, many Christians always remind their believers, “to know the reason for the season; and Jesus as our real gift of Christmas. Therefore, we are called to never focus on the gift but always the Giver! Christians believe that 2,000 years ago, Jesus (both God and Man) came down to earth through a virgin birth to bear the sins of mankind. Therefore he lived on earth 33 years until he took our sins to the cross of Calvary and paid the cost of sin via his sinless life. Man was justified by the death of this sinless saviour. That opened the way for “peace on Earth and Goodwill to all men,” which Christians the world over celebrate till today and will forever. Some traditions even follow a different calendar for the actual Christmas Day; for example the Russian Christmas is always in January and not December. Christians believe that we can experience true freedom and joy in our faith relationship with our Creator and need not be constrained by the limitations of human culture. Therefore, while the debate of how Christmas culture is to be practiced will continue; true faith and adherence should remain unblemished by culture. The bible says in John 8:32…….”then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”
Real value of true democracy?
What then could be the real value of true democracy for any human being? Is it merely having the freedom of the birds and bees to do as one pleases? Some call this liberal democracy focusing on merely fundamental human rights and individual privileges, often ignoring the needs of the rest of society and other human responsibility.
Yet others, on the conservative extreme, would argue for the rights and privileges of tradition, history and culture of society, and focus on a humanly imposed system of order and harmony in society. Thereby, they seek to moderate the “freedom of the individual based on the needs of total society, as imposed by other humans.” To me, both are either-or extremes resulting from a false and artificial construct of human freedom. Such a limited construct is the result of an incomplete ontology and epistemology; the lack of a total worldview based on Truth.
This subject of worldviews and the resultant “dignity of the human person” and the freedom one enjoys has been the substance of my reflection for the last two decades. My enquiry questions whether a human person at any workplace, for one instance, could live a life of dignity and destiny without the denial of his or her God-Given human dignity and stewardship of life opportunities. To me, extending this question or query to the world-place, is my attempt to answer this question of what really is a true democracy.
Human beings are born with limitations; of time, space and endowments. The limitation of endowment includes the nature of human nature, one’s personality profile, and even one’s socio-cultural upbringing and genealogy. Within these human nature limitations, which Christians call the effect of a sinful and fallen nature; humans can be free to live a life of destiny; of finding truth, joy, peace, love and hope.
Often this journey of discovery is achieved through one’s personal faith in a relationship with the Creator. One’s faith can give one that sense of destiny which is filled with purpose and defined by the relationship with one’s creator. Within that upward relationship, one can find the solace of also of an outward relationship; with one’s neighbors. Therefore the Christian edict: to Love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, spirit and strength and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.
Given the above limitations of human nature, what then are the parameters for our construction of any group or organization or society which will protect and privilege human dignity trough civilisation? Is that not what democracy was really meant to be? Is not democracy supposed to be a system to organise ourselves in such a way that we could all honour God and respect each other as human beings, and still live lives of destiny that God has ordained for each of us uniquely? What then are the rules of conduct for each of us in this system of governance wherein we seek to both honor God and respect man; who was created in His own image? Would the answer to this question address the meaning of a true and real democracy, here on earth?
Do we need another Hindraf?
What then is the Malaysian definition of democracy? Let me simply start with our Rukunegara; which our wise leaders crafted after the tumultuous May 13th event of our past. Thereby, based on the original social contract, our nature of governance was repeated and reflected via the Rukunegara. The preamble to the Rukunegara qualifies and defines the nature and vision of the kind of democracy we want and desire. Therefore the goal of our democracy is to:
o Achieve greater unity of all our peoples
o maintain our democratic way of life
o create a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equally shared
o ensure a liberal approach ot our rich and diverse cultural traditions
o build a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology
To achieve these goals, we were to be guided by the following principles we call the Rukunegara:
o Belief in God
o Loyalty to King and Country
o Upholding the Constitution
o Rule of Law
o Good behaviour and morality
My question to all concerned in the “Allah debate:” are we observing the spirit of the Rukunegara when we say Christians who speak Malay cannot use the word “Allah to refer to their one true God?” What then are we really saying? Are we then disingenuous about the Rukunegara and in her belief in God principle? What if the Sabah Christians have in fact been using the word since the 1700s, i.e. well before they joined Malaysia? Are we now saying that this is a condition on their joining Malaysia?
Do we really need another Hindraf-type movement of religious adherents mobilised to action before we realise the fallaciousness of our demands? Would there not be an equal and opposite reaction? Why then is the government creating such “policy agendas” that disrupt the peace and harmony in the country? Is such policy agenda in sync with the Rukunegara? If not, can Pak Lah ask the Minister concerned simply to resign? Instead, why pick on party adherents within the BN who speak the truth for their communities when you have no courage to pick on the real trouble-makers from within Umno?
I am personally therefore supportive of the two Christian organisations that have taken the matter to the courts, because their action upholds the Rule of Law principle. The courts can now say, once and for all, if in fact, this is the subject merely of political interpretation, or is it safer and better to be left to individual preferences and theological constructs, which Article 11 of the Federal Constitution upholds and sustains as a basic guarantee.
Our behaviors in the public spaces of life therefore must adhere to these “5 Rukuns” for the making sense of democratic principles in Malaysia. Otherwise, as peace-loving Malaysians, we must reject any attempt at gerrymandering of these traditional values and practices, regardless of where they come from. Single individuals cannot be allowed to rewrite laws and practices without due regard and consideration for the historic faith and practices of others. May God have mercy on Malaysia; as the government appears to mess up at every turn!
