Racism, exclusivism and prejudice may be as old as the human race, but though they remain as shameful stains on the human character they are also contrary to humankind's nobler instincts towards justice, sympathy and love. For a just society to be created we need to create an environment where justice itself can thrive and prosper: the seeds of justice will not grow in a barren landscape marred by the scars of bigotry and communalism. Understood from a political perspective this means the necessity of creating institutions, organizations and governmental structures that accommodate, promote and defend pluralism and democracy.

Yet the creation of a truly pluralistic democratic space and civil society is not an easy task. More often than not the nobler aims of some are thwarted by compounded interests of the powerful, who wish to engineer and maintain a state of unstable division and strife, which in turn serves as the justification for a divisive form of politics of divide-and-rule. Malaysia is certainly not immune to this malady, and the roots of the problem date back to the British colonial era where natural cleavages of race, ethnicity, religion and language were exploited to the full with the unstated desire to divide the colonised society and to rationalise the governance of a few European colonial administrators over a much bigger (though divided) populace.

Sadly, the lessons that ought to have been learned from the colonial epoch have been wasted on Malaysia. Like many other post-colonial societies, the ruling elite of the post-Merdeka generation have merely perpetuated these divisions artificial though all of them are to suit the interests and serve the agendas of a few. Since its inception Malaysia has been governed via a combination of divisive communitarian politics (which was tragically mirrored by the opposition parties themselves), combined with the threat of force if and when necessary. Our collective national consciousness is configured still within the parameters of this stupefying and arresting discourse; one which conjures up an infinite host of imagined threats and dangers when the status quo feels itself threatened.

Yet it doesn't have to be like this. The ruling elite and their coterie of business and strategic interests should realise by now that such a form of communitarian politics predicated as it is on the essentialist premises of race or religion is fundamentally unstable and can only be propped up via the most repressive of means. Nor should the opposition parties continue to mirror the dominant discourse of the status quo and equally divide themselves into race or religion-based parties, guided by the mistaken logic that they should cater solely to the needs of their primary constituencies. The grand narrative of the Malaysian body politic begs to be deconstructed, and for many Malaysians, particularly those of the younger post-colonial generation, the time has come for such a project.

A third way?

Etno-nationalism and communal majoritarianism have been the bane of the Third World, and the landscape of the developing south is littered with the shattered hulks of nation-states that fell apart under the burden of their own structural contradictions. In countries like Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and many parts of Latin America and Africa, post-colonial governments were ultimately laid low by their own hollow claims to nationalism and political unity. Many of their nationalist projects were premised on the notion that a nation has to be governed from the centre by a benevolent yet all-powerful omniscient elite who somehow miraculously intuited the needs and wants of the plural masses. In time the aspirations of their complex societies were subsumed behind the grand narrative of the 'great leader' who stood to the fore to speak for the whole of the nation and in the process consigned the voices of others to the margins.

The grand narrative of the Malaysian story has been just another variant of the same post-colonial discourse, and it too has been the inheritor of the ills and misfortunes of the post-colonial enterprise. The crucial mistake that we have made is our failure to interrogate further the underlying racist logic upon which the colonial Malayan state was set up; and our failure to do so means that we have merely perpetuated the legacy of the colonial era. But all is not lost, for history is never fully written and the final chapter of our collective story not concluded.

The plural democratic alternative

Today as Malaysia is gripped by election fever we witness the same sordid spectacle of soap-box operatics, hysterionics and verbal pyrotechnics that has become the sole form of entertainment in a society jaded by consumerism and spectacular access. In the midst of party-hopping, slander, abuse, name-calling and accusations being traded across the spectrum, one constant factor comes to the fore: Despite their own narrow and exclusive outlook, almost all of the parties that have offered themselves to the nation claims to speak to and for the nation as a whole.

But when Malaysian politicians and political parties address the nation, they need to remember that Malaysia is a complex abstract entity that is barely fifty years of age. This young and fragile nation is one that is complex, multifarious and diverse. To speak of Malaysia means recognising that there are many 'Malaysias', made up of disparate and diverse constituents with different demands, hopes and longings. It is the task of any aspiring national party to craft together a discourse that both reflects this diversity as well as placates the demands of the whole put together.

While doing so it has to constantly emphasise that these differences be they racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic are neither essential nor fixed. Indeed, pluralism comes into its own when we realise that our diverse identities are the product of inter-penetration and cross-fertilization. Thus far, none of the dominant parties in this country has been willing to acknowledge this simple truth: that we are a hybrid nation made up of singular hybrids ourselves.

For too long it has been our collective burden to live under the yoke of a divisive politics that has divided Malaysians against Malaysians. Ethno-nationalists have erected barriers between the races while religious communitarians have policed the frontiers between their respective religious communities. Thus far all talk of national unity has been mere sophistry, a smart though cruel conceit to disguise the fact that the factors that have united us so far are fear, contempt and loathing for each other. Yet a nation cannot be glued together simply by a common racism which cuts through the national body as a common vice we all share.

It is for that reason that one has to applaud the recent effort of one party that has tried to break the mould and go against the grain of this stale and rank logic that has plagued us for so long. When the Parti Keadilan Rakyat announced that it would offer a 'third way' out of the current impasse that hinders us all, it comes as a welcome relief for those of us who are tired of labouring under the age-old communitarian logic that has been the burden of Malaysia since the beginning.

It remains to be seen if Keadilan can keep its course and not fall into the abyss that has been created by the other bigger parties in the country: the pitfall of falling back on its 'natural constituency' in the form of a specific racial or religious community. Keadilan must remember that as a party that strives towards the betterment of the nation as a whole, its natural constituency has to be the Malaysian nation as a whole as well. Its natural voter has to be none other than the abstract Malaysian citizen who is truly Malaysian in thought, deeds and sentiments. And if not enough 'Malaysian Malaysians' can be found, it has to embark on the task of helping to create them through sustained political education. Political education, therefore, comes first: The Malaysian subject-citizen has to be created, so that she/he can vote, think and act like a true Malaysian.

A theology of reform

Keadilan's appointed task is going to be a Herculean effort to say the least. One has to be realistic about the possibility of reform in this country, for change does not come easily to a people so thoroughly depoliticised as this species of homo sapiens known as Malaysians. Though their chances are not guaranteed and may seem slim at a glance, those who wish to reform this society and work towards a more pluralist and democratic vision of the future need to have that one variable quality that is hard to classify: faith.

By 'faith' I am not referring to some pseudo-religious character, attitude or bearing. Rather what I am referring to is a 'theology of reform' (uncluttered by cosmetic religiosity that is so fashionable these days) that is underpinned by a grand narrative of its own. Any socially-transformative project demands and requires a grand narrative of its own; one that can serve as a guiding principle, a common goal, a final destination and an object of sacrifice if necessary.

These days, when religion has become so thoroughly politicised in Malaysia (and the rituals and norms of politics been elevated to the status of holy dogma in turn), there is still a need for those who strive for a secular, pluralist, democratic project to invest their faith in the cause they believe in. The irony is that while religiously-inclined conservatives are prepared to die for their beliefs, and while ethno-nationalist rightists are willing to kill for theirs, progressive liberals and democrats still lack a discourse of salvation and sacrifice that can sustain them for the long run.

We need to believe that the values of pluralism and democracy are not merely goals to be achieved by pragmatic ends, but are in fact lofty and noble ideals worth dying for. (Perhaps the last breath of this idealism was issued during the Spanish Civil War, when idealistic democrats from all over the world worked their way to Spain to support the democrats and laid down their lives in their fight against the Fascists.)

Here one should take a leaf out of the book of the history of Keadilan's ally, PAS. When PAS was formed in 1951 it was a break-away party that was shooed out of the royal house of Umno. PAS was so poor then that the members could not afford rent for an office, salary for their staff, or even buy a typewriter! PAS has gone through remarkable periods of transformation, from its 'leftist' period under Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy (the only true non-racist Islamist this country has ever produced), the 'Malay supremacist' era of Asri Muda (undoubtedly the most ethno-nationalist leader this country has ever produced), the 'Ulama faction' era and its latest avatar as the upholders of constitutionalism (albeit heavily soaked in the dye of a specific religion). PAS has gone through ups and downs, including its nadir at the elections of 1986 when it managed to win only one parliamentary seat. Yet despite these upheavals PAS has been sustained by the faith of its members who believe in their heart of hearts that theirs is the future project and destiny of Malaysia.

Can Keadilan develop and inspire such confidence and faith in its members and supporters? Here then lies the ultimate challenge for the reformist democrats and pluralists of Malaysia. We all dream of another Malaysia: one that is humane and just in its character; cognisant and respectful of the internal differences that lend it its beauty and uniqueness; and one that can offer to the world a truly laudable model of a multiracial democracy that succeeds not through force and coercion but thanks to a pluralist democratic political culture at its core. So keep your faith and stay the course: the struggle for the third way has just begun.