The political animal

"Man is a political animal," said Aristotle. He exists in and by society. The differences among men are not entirely subdued in the political community.

The diversity in the faculties of men leads to different and unequal rights and opportunities in property and wealth acquisition, dividing society into different interests and parties.

It is an obstacle to a uniformity of interest. The protection of these varied faculties is the object of government. We need a social condition in which contrasting values are maintained in equilibrium.

The Greeks discovered democracy, if they did not invent it. The government was a people’s government. The majority idea was stimulating and it stipulated responsibility of the rulers to the people.

It gave birth to the numerical quality or the majority principle today. Nevermind the tyranny of the majority. Thus developed democracy through representative government.

Liberty has so many meanings but it is mostly associated with the concept of freedom from restraint, which marks the beginning of modern society. It belongs alongside the idea of individualism. ‘Liberty’ and ‘individualism’ co-exist in most societies albeit in varying degrees and forms.

A liberty or freedom is broader than a right, for disregarding the presence or absence of protection in law, it is the ability of people to do as they wish. A collective liberty makes a policy.

Political policies are collective liberties, wishes and goals. Most policies inflict restraints on some people. Many liberties were fought in the shadows between a right and a wrong.

Free speech used to be, and may still be associated with political turmoil, reformasi and even revolution, for example the American Declaration of Independence.

What was a ‘wrong’ before may become a ‘right’ now. Slavery was a right, it is now a wrong. As many liberties exist as there are human wishes, the process of restraint on liberties are equally endless. The law and social intercourse are constant restraints upon liberty.

Politics of liberty

Men are reasonable and social creatures. The real law comes from the will of the people, for only such consent permits law to be enforced. Without enforceability, there is no law.

So, they create and structure society for their own good to avoid chaos and inconveniences of living in a land without order.

A political order links all citizens together. They elect representatives by majority vote to carry out their will or the social contract that lies beneath the expressed will of the communities that have come together. Thus evolved the rule of law and constitutionalism, written or otherwise.

A liberty protected by law is a right, a liberty pursued in defiance of law is a wrong. A person’s right is his ability to pursue a course of behaviour under the protection of the law, which is formally defined by constitutions, legislatures, courts, official bodies and even community customs. It is carried out and enforced by administrative officers, executive officials and courts.

When the government has a policy, it is called a public or political policy, and, since the government has the authority to carry out its policies, it does so with the legal protections of a right. Take for instance, the Internal Security Act or the NEP, but hopefully not the proposed acts on DNA and race relations.

Such policies are usually crafted and carried out by a few people. But to say that a policy is democratic because it expresses the wishes of the legislature and reflects the will of those in power is not to say that it is always wise or good.

The whole notion of forms of government may be considered to be three-governments by the one, by the few and by the many. Dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, monarchy and empires are usually associated with force in the seizure of power by one person.

In its purest form, democratic governments such as in UK, USA and Denmark are technically governments by the many. In practical reality, they are governments by the few at the top of the political ladder.

Of all the political attention on the political scene in modern times, the most abundant discussion on the forms of government centre around government by the few, variously termed aristocracy, oligarchy, or the elite.

Started as a class system of prerogatives for the nobility and wealthy groups, it was based on the claim their leadership and abilities provided peace, progress and contentment for the nation. Roberto Michels pronounced it as "iron law of oligarchy".

Iron law of oligarchy

It is the irresistible tendencies of groups, organised in democratic ways for democratic aims, to develop into groups run by a few men mostly for their own goals. Politics are run by a few men everywhere, resulting in cronyism, corruption and inefficiency in governance.

This ‘totalitarian democracy’ is the rule by the messianic minority in power, allegedly on behalf of the silent majority, but tolerating no dissent. Such leaders are reflected in statements like "Don’t mess with me", "I know best of what’s good for you all", and "I am your government in power".

Self-centred political arrogance has been levelled at Barisan National politicians by the opposition and the dissenting populance, which is increasing in numbers and intensity.

Likewise, the same is said of some of Pakatan Rakyat representatives, if they choose to look at themselves in the mirror.

This is power politics as described in Leviathan by Hobbes: "All passions may be reduced to the desire of power". And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The elitist leaders like listening to their own voices which are also deafened with echoes by the political deadwoods that make up their forests.

So, what dreams may come for the electorate who voted their choice candidates into the legislature? Our next article will address issues like party politics, pressure groups and the silence of the lamb.

---

GOH LENG CHUA is a retired lawyer based in Kuching.