The term 'reform' seems to have become politically correct these days. It has not always been so.

Six years ago, when the thunderous shout of 'Reformasi' reverberated through the streets of Kuala Lumpur, the idea of reform frightened many citizens. It conjured up images of great insecurity, street violence and even riots.

The prime minister then, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had come to the throne in 1981 on a reform agenda, with the pledge of creating a clean, efficient and trustworthy administration. Seventeen years later, he put down the reform movement of his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim with the ruthless employment of the security apparatchik of the state.

Then the super-strongman of Malaysian politics retired, finally, to the relief of his friends and foes alike.

The new prime minister, like a new broom that he was, also launched his new career with promises of reform. Dubbed as Mr Clean by the ingratiating media, Pak Lah won a landslide victory at the last general election on the platform of working with and for the rakyat, especially in eradicating corruption.

Now that he has been freed, Anwar Ibrahim roars like a caged tiger that has just been returned to the mountains. All sorts of animals cringe as his unspecified message of reform agenda echoes through the jungle that is Malaysian politics.

All at once, people from all shades of political and ethnic persuasions begin to speculate about the future path of the nation. Reform is in the air. Many commentators hail this fresh outbreak of optimism as the new dawn of Malaysian destiny.

It has become a Malaysian tradition for the rakyat to wait with bated breath announcements from their elevated philosopher kings to announce their various visions in nation-building. The educated urban middle-class is no exception. There will be "wish-lists", and threatening proclamation of watching the leaders to see if they will "walk the talk".

Conservatives vs radicals

But I cannot refrain from asking this nagging question: what kind of reform do the people want? Or, do they want any reform at all?

The term 'people' is itself an amorphous expression. Although much pain has been inflicted on many people in the name of 'the people', we do not seem to have one Malaysian people as yet. We have merely many divisions of Malaysians categorised according to all kinds of arbitrary standards, by the law or by the individuals themselves.

Let me add one more arbitrary division. By and large, human beings are either conservative or radical.

Or, to be more circumspective about the fluid ambiguity of human nature, all Malaysians - that is you and I - fall somewhere between ultra-conservatism to the extreme right and ultra-radicalism to the extreme left. (Even the ideas of "right" and "left" do not have clear specific connotations of direction in our confusing murky Malaysian landscape.)

It would be a mistake to think that conservatives do not want change. But all human beings - including the conservatives - want changes for the better to improve their lot, according to what they see as their vision of the good life.

It is just that conservatives value traditions and institutions; they prefer gradual piecemeal changes that will not disrupt the existing social order and their personal life too much. Continuity is the magic word, and 'political stability' is their mantra.

It may be that conservatives have their vested interests generated, promoted or protected through the status quo. I would say that most people from the econo-politico-social elite class in Malaysia belong to this category.

Likewise, the newly emergent urban middle-class in developing nations would also tend to exhibit traits of this political conservatism. If they are the beneficiaries of the existing system, why should they rock the boat to the extent of capsizing it? They prefer a strong captain who will steer the ship of state with a steady hand along familiar maritime routes, in calm waters most of the time.

Therefore, you would expect citizens at the bottom of the economic pile to see themselves as the oppressed exploited class, whose only hope for true salvation must rely on a radical overturn of the rules of the game, and the superstructure of the state, in order to become the masters of their own destiny?

Would they not want, not merely reforms, but outright revolutions?

That was the Marxian dream of many revolutionaries all over the world in the last century, including our home-grown Malaysian communists. However, history seems to have proven Karl Marx wrong about human nature and his theory of historical materialist dialectic on many counts.

As many revolutionaries and radical reformists have discovered, in Malaysia and elsewhere, the oppressed and the marginalised do not always want liberation. They have been entrapped in helplessness, despair and a crippling sense of futility for too long. Often, they take shelter in the fuzzy comfort provided by alcohol - or religion.

Those among the very poor have another alternative, and often take it. Mesmerised by the seductive power and lifestyle of the elite class, the long oppressed people of the world can aspire to join the rank of the oppressors.

Perhaps the capitalist theorists and conspirators of the world have all studied Das Kapital in earnest. They realise the danger of great inequality of wealth and economic opportunities.

Therefore, they have engineered social-economic measures aimed at absorbing the poor to the rank and file of the middle-class, through the magical philosophy of "development". This new blood injected into the urban middle-class can sometimes be even more conservative and apathetic than the moneyed class.

Therefore, there is very little room left for the ideas of radical reformers to take root among the populace.

Civil society groups

Unlike Malaysian revolutionaries of old, radical reformers today believe in peaceful methods of agitation, preferring to work within the framework of our system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

Many of them have found their niche in what are referred to as "civil society groups", although the term is so vague that it can also be used to cover organisations sponsored by rich and powerful conservatives as well.

These are small but vocal groups of Malaysians agitating for drastic reviews of the many laws which were supposed to have been enacted in the past to preserve social order, but which have since been misused to keep the ruling parties in power.

Naturally, these civil society groups are seen as usurpers of the status quo, because the kind and pace of reform advocated by them would be seen as a serious threat to the grip on power by those sitting atop the economic cum political food-chain of the nation.

The whole weight of the machinery of state is brought to bear to marginalise and silence these social activists. The persecution of Irene Fernandez is but one of countless examples. The kind of risks and limitations the good people in malaysiakini have to face daily is another.

But, if the civil society groups are working in such constricted oppressive climate, it is not merely that they are marginalised by the power centre. Those in power will abuse their power beyond the limits of ethical standards only because they can, and because the majority of the people allow them.

If so, it now becomes obvious that the majority of Malaysians are - at this moment in our nation's history - conservatives, who will condone silently injustices against the call for radical reforms.

If the development of human civilisation has to be premised upon some universal ethical standard, then its path must meander along the difficult progression towards one goal: to replace the rule of brute force by the rule of meaningful consensus building.

In a fledgling democracy like ours, it would mean seeking ways to eradicate the rule by tyranny of the majority. Whether that majority is conservative or radical does not matter.

The fate that has befallen Anwar Ibrahim is unjust, because the transparency and independence of the judiciary and other crucial institutions of the state have been distorted beyond measure through the use of brute force of the state. It would have been equally unjust if the victim happened to be Mahathir.

The Mother of Reforms, irrespective of whether the specific reform agenda comes from conservatives or radicals, from Malays or Chinese or Indians, must be the building of voluntary reasonable consensus.

The building of consensus requires a procedural concept of justice. People of all skin colours and political beliefs must be allowed to talk responsibly and freely. Even a dog that has been kicked without good reasons deserves the right to yelp in pain!

Reform to restore reasonable freedom of speech is the pre-conditions of all reforms.

A free media must be the necessary - though yet insufficient condition - for a national dialogue towards some kind of working consensus on what reform shall best serve the general will of the people.

In short, there must be the favourable conditions and the free open space for the sensible articulation of various claims for reform in an equal, just and transparent manner.