Of negotiations, words and symbols
If we reduced any democracy to its bare bone, indeed, it only consists of two parties, the majority and minority. The majority, due to its numerical superiority — and thus, presumed to be a better choice to administer the state — is supposed to govern the state. And govern the state they should do. Not rule over the minority.
Art Harun, TMI
In “Negotiating in a Multiethnic Society”, Umberto Eco posits:
“The fundamental principle that governs — or ought to govern — human affairs, if we wish to avoid misunderstandings, conflicts or pointless utopias, is negotiation. The model of negotiation is an oriental bazaar: the seller asks for ten, you offer three, he says nine, you four, he goes down to eight, you go up to five, and finally you both agree on six. You feel you have won because you went up only three and he came down four, but the seller is equally satisfied because he knows the item is worth five. But, in the end, if you are interested in those goods and he is interested in selling them, you are both pleased.”
Eco further said that in matters requiring interpretations, parties must be recognisant of facts in relation to the relevant matters. In his words:
“…..I have always said the opposite, that our interpretations continually beat their heads against the hard core of facts, and the facts (even though often difficult to interpret) are there, solid and aggressive, to challenge untenable interpretations.
“We negotiate because, if everyone stuck to his own interpretations of the facts, we would go on ad infinitum. We negotiate to bring our diverging interpretation to a point of convergence, if only a partial one, that enables us to deal with a Fact — a thing that is there and is difficult to get rid of.” (emphasis is mine).
Malaysia is what it is now because of the complete lack of this very element, an element which, to Eco, is or ought to be “a fundamental principle that governs human affairs.” And I must state that politicians, leaders, supporters, followers, minions and their cats from both side of the divide have unfortunately developed an inexplicable comatose reaction to this very concept.
It is as if Malaysia — and by extension, our whole political and societal landscape as well as their penumbrous region — centres only around us and is all about us, us and nobody else but us.
Either you are with us or you are with them. And if you are with us, you are right. Otherwise, you are wrong.
In “Democracy in America”, Tocqueville pondered:
“A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach?”
If we reduced any democracy to its bare bone, indeed, it only consists of two parties, the majority and minority. The majority, due to its numerical superiority — and thus, presumed to be a better choice to administer the state — is supposed to govern the state. And govern the state they should do. Not rule over the minority.
It is then an incontrovertible FACT that in such state of political landscape, there are primarily TWO interests, namely, the majority and minority interests. These interests my at certain points be similar or even identical with each other, such as the need to enjoy universal human rights and such. But in matters where they do diverge, a democracy does not entail the majority riding rough shod over the minority. Rather, a successful and meaningful democracy is measured by the ability, willingness and capacity of the majority to make a fair and just administrative and governing decision in the best interest of the state as a whole.
This requires negotiation.
The lack of negotiation, when caused by the ruling party, would turn any so-called democracy into a state of “benevolent authoritarian.” For this, we do not need to look far. Just remember the Mahathir era.
On the other hand, a refusal to negotiate, when caused by the opposition who chooses to be the opposite all the time, would turn a democracy into a donkey, the ever abused and misused poor creature with no possibility of progress or even redemption.
The lack of negotiation is compounded by the selective usages of certain words as symbols.
