What is the nature of political representation of Indians in Malaysia? To what extent is the official/formal version capable of articulating the interest of the community? What is problematic with this official version and what is the alternative?

Official/formal articulation of the interest of Indians in the country is provided by the MIC within the ethnic coalition of the BN and to a lesser extent by political parties such as the IPF and PPP. However, articulation of the official version is not confined to those who have only formal membership in the BN coalition as is the case with IPF.

Beyond this, official version of political representation of the Indian community by these political parties is not something independent or autonomous; in fact, this particular political articulation is sustained by the nature of the development of the civil society in Malaysia and in particular the Indian sub-section that provides the contours and parameters of the ultimate location of the present official forms of representation.

Therefore if the MIC or the IPF has some basis of support in the Indian community, then the reasons are not found so much in the actions of these parties themselves than in the nature and orientation of political, cultural and social discourses within the community. It is the activities of hundreds of language, cultural, religious other organisations within the Indian sub-community that actually provide the background for the conservative political orientation within the community with its ultimate manifestation in the political actions of the MIC or the IPF.

Conservative representation

In other words, it is conservative political orientation of the Malaysian civil society in general and its sub-section located within the Indian community that has provided for the conservative political representation of the community by the MIC in the coalition of the BN. It is not that the prevalent civil society is completely homogenous, but the appearance of cracks has a long way to go in challenging the kind of mind-set that has been produced and sustained.

However, despite the formal representative role of the MIC, it can really do little to bravely and honestly articulate the fundamental concerns of its constituency that have become marginalized and one of the most exploited segments of the Malaysian population. Again, even if the MIC seems to have some relevance in the context of Malaysian politics, it is the politics of racial hegemony and the notion of false consciousness among the rank and file that seem to buttress this relevance.

However, despite the notion of its relevance, there is mounting empirical evidence that the party or its umbrella can do little to address the fundamental concerns of Indians. Forty three years of independence has meant nothing for Indians who have contributed much to the development and progress of this country. The perennial problem of not being able to break out of the working class confines, the material and political problems encountered in acquiring decent economic ownership, growing social problems and others have stunted the progress of the community.

Official representation via one minister, two deputy ministers, one or two parliamentary secretaries, a few state assemblymen and others have meant nothing for the community except in symbolic terms or in terms of satisfying certain ethnic criteria.

MIC's subservient position

Apart from the structural problems of numerical inferiority relative to other larger ethnic groups and economic stagnation and its total subservient position within the BN, the MIC has a share of other problems. Lacking democracy and being under the control of the party president, there is little that the second and third echelon leaders could do to revitalize the party from its present in-the-doldrums situation.

Party leaders being selected on the basis of their loyalty to certain entrenched leaders provide little leeway for the party as a whole to take up broader and more meaningful issues for the betterment of the community. Moreover, the total dependence of the party leaders to resolve community issues on the basis of their dependence on top Umno leaders has made mockery of the party's representation. However, this is not to mention how the party squandered millions of ringgit collected from the poor members of the community in undertaking economic and social ventures.

If the MIC cannot represent the genuine aspirations of the community, then it would be impossible for the IPF or the PPP to do anything worthwhile for the community. These two parties, one remaining outside waiting to be invited and the other component party of the BN have no agenda nor have they honestly and decently articulated the interests of the community.

Seeking to obtain membership from disaffected elements with the MIC, both seem more interested in pleasing Umno leaders. While IPF has some measure of support from the rank and file Indians, PPP seems to be limited to a minuscule membership. Although the latter is multi-racial party, it does not seem to have recruited more than a handful of Malays or Chinese to its fold. To date, its limited identity in the Malaysian political arena seems to be solely determined by its membership within BN; without BN, the party's identity would just wither away.

Outmoded model

There is growing realization as a result of recent developments within the country that the socio-cultural base of the MIC's particular mode of representation might be slowly cracking. Of course, such a development presupposes the larger coalition itself is cracking under its own weight of corruption, cronyism and racism. Thus given these changes within the realm of civil society, it would be difficult in years to come for the coalition or its Indian component, the MIC, to sustain the present outmoded and very elitist model of representation.

Indians in the country really need a form of representation that will address their political, economic, social and cultural concerns in a serious and honest manner without fear and favour. They should not be conceptualized in terms of their numbers or because they have a small stake in the economy. In this respect, oppositional discourses to the present hegemonic set-up must address Indians from the perspective of a nationality or national group in the country entitled to rights and privileges like any other groups.

Although there is no ready made model for this proposition, the actual outcome must emanate from a larger discussion that would touch on the development and future of all nationality groups in the country.

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.