According to many Mahathiristas (supporters and worshippers of Dr Mahathir Mohamad), Umno and the Barisan Nasional have regained its strength and popularity. Well, they could be right, if the sheer volume of the voices as well as noises that speak in unison in the official media is any indication.

However, if we are not wont to "mudah lupa" (forget easily), an accusation that had been levied against Malay Malaysians by the prime minister himself, then we would recall that the Mahathiristas said the same thing before the most recent general election, and yet Umno not only failed to recapture Kelantan but also lost Terengganu to its rival, PAS.

In fact, on the evening just after the poll was closed, many Umno leaders, members and supporters in Terengganu were prepared to celebrate victory. The reality that emerged a few hours later proved they were suffering from what American social psychologist Irving Janis called groupthink.

Those who thought in 1998 that the people would forget about the Anwar Ibrahim debacle in "two or three weeks" also seemed to have been suffering from groupthink stemming from wishful thinking.

The theory of groupthink is not difficult to understand: Under pressure and stress, or confronting formidable opponents, people who strongly share the same values and objectives tend to agree with each other and reinforce each other's views in a moment of real or imaginary crisis, whether the views are objectively valid or not. The psychology of groupthink could be unrealistically optimistic or excessively pessimistic.

In the absence of reliable, independent and honest institutions to conduct opinion polls in Malaysia, and in the proliferation of people who have to hide their views for fear of repressive measures against them, it is certainly reasonable to view the claim that Umno and the BN have regained support from Malay and Muslim Malaysians with caution and reservation.

To be sure, Mahathiristas are still entitled to believe what they believe or claim — for all sorts of personal and utilitarian reasons — to believe. It is their right although they are not well known for respecting the human rights of others.

No reliable statistics

The point is that if others have their own assessments or opinions on the prevailing situation, they may not necessarily be wrong. There are no reliable statistics to prove or disapprove either side of the political divide.

Moreover, there could also be the possibility that the claim is intended to be self-fulfilling. In psychological warfare, making and repeating self-fulfilling statements is not new or unusual. It is to induce, pressure or frighten the timid and compliant people who are made to believe that they are in the minority or are certain to be defeated, and must submit to the will of the majority, whether the majority is real, imagined or concocted.

In military terms it is called strategic or tactical deception: When one is relatively weak, then one should appear to be strong in order to break the will to fight or resist by one's stronger opponent, before the actual battle or combat takes place.

However, this strategy or tactic has its limitations, and may also backfire. It assumes that one's opponents or the public are timid and easily frightened into submission by relative strength. It does not factor in the possibility that some people could be psychologically more predisposed to fight the strong and pity the weak.

In the latter case, the stronger one appears, the more likely one's opponents or the public are determined to fight or resist one because of their moral convictions. In other words, the strategy or tactic of appearing to be strong while one is relatively weak only works on those people whose dominant behaviour is to despise the weak and bandwagon with the strong, even when the weaker party is morally right and the stronger one wrong.

There are also people who are inclined to side with the underdog and despise the top dog.

Two examples

It happened in the Suez Crisis in 1956 and the Vietnam War between 1954 and 1975. In the former case, the Franco-British military alliance was strong not only in appearance but also in reality, vis-a-vis Gamal Nasser's Egypt. But the stronger the Franco-British alliance appeared to be, the more determined and resolute were the Egyptians in their fight and resistance. Finally, it was the Franco-British alliance that backed down and Nasser won.

The Vietnamese displayed similar traits. Without the advantages offered either by number in armed personnel and weaponry, or military technology, they fought French colonialism and American imperialism for 30 years and won. The Vietnamese fought armed with moral qualities against sheer number and modern technology. They counted on the support and solidarity of the public, including Americans and Europeans, who were inclined to side with the weak and despise the strong.

The Egyptian and Vietnamese fortitude are, of course, not unprecedented in human history. Before them, there were the early Christians and martyrs in Rome and Prophet Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him) and his contemporary disciples in the Arabian peninsula. There were also the European philosophers and encyclopaedists in the 17th century who fought lonely battles of ideas against feudal despotism and absolutism.

No certainty

Seen from this historical perspective on human psychology and behaviour, there is no certainty that even if the claim that Umno and the BN have regained support at this moment were true, all others would cease to resist or fight against them. Although some believe that might is right, there are always people who also are convinced that one's numerical strength does not necessarily mean one is morally right.

Indeed, the belief that might is not necessarily right furnishes the foundation of the development of sciences, arts, technology and the notion of human rights.

The notion of human rights is not about the rule of the majority, but the respect for and protection of the minority. The struggle and respect for human rights are actually intended to countervail the tyranny of the majority.

In practice, it means that whether the violators of human rights are strong or weak, the struggle for human rights has to continue even if there is only one fighter left after the next general election. Moral conviction has nothing to do with numbers and figures.

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM) which produces the subscriber-based political report, Analysis Malaysia. Wong is a former member of parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew, he and a team of journalists won the top awards of Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.