Group Think
Neil KhorPublished: Sep 22, 2008 9:20 AM | Updated: Sep 22, 2008 9:23 AM
The more unified a political party becomes, the wider its ability to harness and exercise power. In order to ensure that party unity is maintained at all times, consensus thinking usually rules the day.
That special ingredient that pulls organisation and unity together is the personality of the party leader. Some leaders, by their sheer presence and convincing arguments, can bring about consensus. Others use their running dogs, often half-educated men whose best quality is blind loyalty.
Over time, consensus-thinking leads to the ossification of a political party. The ideals that so inspired the people can be likened to a frog swimming in slowly heated waters; ideals that die so gradually, their demise is imperceptible to party members.
But the leaders themselves are affected by this process. Leaders who have been at it for too long suffer from intellectual menopause.
In a coalition of parties that form a government, consensus thinking is even more important. The coalition leader is like a leviathan, whose personality, access to punitive authority and treasure needs to be near absolute. In short, he is like an emperor ruling over semi-autonomous kings.
That is of course, a very simplistic description and in Malaysia, the task of being a national leader can be exhaustive and thankless. Nonetheless, we must constantly remind our political leaders that they volunteered their services and nobody forced them onto their soap-boxes.
Coming back to the point, in a coalition of political parties that have ruled for a very long time, a core ideology begins to overwhelm all other ways of thinking. Like in Lords of the Rings, there's one ring that aspires to rule all others.
In fact, this ideology cripples all alternative ideas. Reaching a consensus soon becomes more important than truth or reality. This is called ‘Group Think’.
The recent proposal to pass a Race Relations Act is a good example of group think. Here ‘race’ is the cornerstone of all things. Like the ‘one ring’, it bears its true nature when there is heat, in this case from the likes of Ahmad Ismail.
The war drums begin to beat and this brings out the minions of racial politics. The leviathan resorts to drastic measures: the ISA to calm down ‘racial tension’.
There is a serious flaw here. What should have been a secret side-show has been exposed. We see clearly how ‘racial tension’ was created.
Now, we are watching Act Two: enters Race Relations Act. It seems that leaders in the BN are so caught up with shoring their respective race-based turfs that they forgot to look outside the group.
The Act is yet another attempt to define, control and discipline discussions about ethnicity and ethnic relations. The continued use of the word ‘race’, which is based upon a flawed idea of pre-determined biological differences shows how ossified BN leaders have become.
The word ethnicity, which describes clearly how ethnic identity is a social construction is more in keeping with the times.
In fact, Lim Kit Siang hit the nail on the head when he asked incredulously how Ahmad Ismail, a second-generation born Malaysian of Indian sub-continental heritage can call the Chinese squatters?
Well, Ahmad Ismail's feelings of being a Malay are genuine. Here one aspect of Malay identity as defined by Ahmad and his ilk includes feelings of being marginalised. Never mind if he is quite wealthy and has business dealings with the Chinese.
Ahmad Ismail's outburst shows that blood-ties and origins do not matter in terms of ‘ethnicity’. What constitutes ‘Malay’ identity a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago in the time of the Tunku, does not correspond with what is identifiably Malay today.
Ethnic identities evolve, influenced by changes in religious beliefs, economic activities and linguistic heritage.
If Malay serials are a reflection of the community and their aspirations, it seems that the community has a strong desire for material improvement and shares with all Malaysians the need for a peaceful country. The latter is the best enabler for wealth accumulation.
Yes, other ethnic groups seldom appear in these mainstream movies but problems with adapting to industrialisation, growing materialism and a resurgence in religious feeling are all common-place Malaysian experiences.
So, a Race Relations Act will not make any difference to the reality on the ground. It is just that it will hinder us from realising that we have much more in common that we know. The Act will certainly tie up the hands of BN component party leaders further but it will not diminish ‘racial tension’ as this would be the death-knell of the BN itself.
Without Ahmad Ismail and his ilk, the race-based parties of the BN would lose their reason for existing.
No, the Race Relations Act needs proper scrutiny least it imposes more regulations on our freedom to discuss matters related to ethnic equality. The whole nation need not be governed by group think. We do not need one ring to rule us all.
That special ingredient that pulls organisation and unity together is the personality of the party leader. Some leaders, by their sheer presence and convincing arguments, can bring about consensus. Others use their running dogs, often half-educated men whose best quality is blind loyalty.
Over time, consensus-thinking leads to the ossification of a political party. The ideals that so inspired the people can be likened to a frog swimming in slowly heated waters; ideals that die so gradually, their demise is imperceptible to party members.
But the leaders themselves are affected by this process. Leaders who have been at it for too long suffer from intellectual menopause.
In a coalition of parties that form a government, consensus thinking is even more important. The coalition leader is like a leviathan, whose personality, access to punitive authority and treasure needs to be near absolute. In short, he is like an emperor ruling over semi-autonomous kings.
That is of course, a very simplistic description and in Malaysia, the task of being a national leader can be exhaustive and thankless. Nonetheless, we must constantly remind our political leaders that they volunteered their services and nobody forced them onto their soap-boxes.
Coming back to the point, in a coalition of political parties that have ruled for a very long time, a core ideology begins to overwhelm all other ways of thinking. Like in Lords of the Rings, there's one ring that aspires to rule all others.
In fact, this ideology cripples all alternative ideas. Reaching a consensus soon becomes more important than truth or reality. This is called ‘Group Think’.
The recent proposal to pass a Race Relations Act is a good example of group think. Here ‘race’ is the cornerstone of all things. Like the ‘one ring’, it bears its true nature when there is heat, in this case from the likes of Ahmad Ismail.
The war drums begin to beat and this brings out the minions of racial politics. The leviathan resorts to drastic measures: the ISA to calm down ‘racial tension’.
There is a serious flaw here. What should have been a secret side-show has been exposed. We see clearly how ‘racial tension’ was created.
Now, we are watching Act Two: enters Race Relations Act. It seems that leaders in the BN are so caught up with shoring their respective race-based turfs that they forgot to look outside the group.
The Act is yet another attempt to define, control and discipline discussions about ethnicity and ethnic relations. The continued use of the word ‘race’, which is based upon a flawed idea of pre-determined biological differences shows how ossified BN leaders have become.
The word ethnicity, which describes clearly how ethnic identity is a social construction is more in keeping with the times.
In fact, Lim Kit Siang hit the nail on the head when he asked incredulously how Ahmad Ismail, a second-generation born Malaysian of Indian sub-continental heritage can call the Chinese squatters?
Well, Ahmad Ismail's feelings of being a Malay are genuine. Here one aspect of Malay identity as defined by Ahmad and his ilk includes feelings of being marginalised. Never mind if he is quite wealthy and has business dealings with the Chinese.
Ahmad Ismail's outburst shows that blood-ties and origins do not matter in terms of ‘ethnicity’. What constitutes ‘Malay’ identity a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago in the time of the Tunku, does not correspond with what is identifiably Malay today.
Ethnic identities evolve, influenced by changes in religious beliefs, economic activities and linguistic heritage.
If Malay serials are a reflection of the community and their aspirations, it seems that the community has a strong desire for material improvement and shares with all Malaysians the need for a peaceful country. The latter is the best enabler for wealth accumulation.
Yes, other ethnic groups seldom appear in these mainstream movies but problems with adapting to industrialisation, growing materialism and a resurgence in religious feeling are all common-place Malaysian experiences.
So, a Race Relations Act will not make any difference to the reality on the ground. It is just that it will hinder us from realising that we have much more in common that we know. The Act will certainly tie up the hands of BN component party leaders further but it will not diminish ‘racial tension’ as this would be the death-knell of the BN itself.
Without Ahmad Ismail and his ilk, the race-based parties of the BN would lose their reason for existing.
No, the Race Relations Act needs proper scrutiny least it imposes more regulations on our freedom to discuss matters related to ethnic equality. The whole nation need not be governed by group think. We do not need one ring to rule us all.
View Comments0