I refer to the comment piece Futile to protest against petrol and diesel hikes .

The main purpose of that article, as far as I can gather, is to impress upon readers that the recent fuel price hike is due solely to external factors, and that blame should not be placed on our present government.

That is certainly a view that will have its supporters as well as critics. The purpose of my letter is not to enter into this particular debate. Rather, I wish to address some other issues that arise starkly from the writer’s line of argument, of which the issues are, to me, of fundamental importance.

Out of his belief that the government is free from blame in relation to the price hike, the writer proceeds to give the following additional opinions:

(a) That street protest is therefore ‘futile’.

(b) That some people attend street demonstrations ‘for amusement’ purposes, or as a ‘new pastime’.

(c) That the regulars at such gatherings ‘appear to have lots of time to do so’, implying that they have nothing better to do.

(d) That some people find excuses to go for demonstrations, the ‘latest excuse’ being the petrol price hike. He doubts if the true motive of these people has anything to do with the subject matter of their protest at all.

(e) That some members of the public ‘are being exploited’ by the organisers of demonstrations to help achieve the latter’s political ends.

(f) That demonstrations will ‘destabilise the nation’, and ‘might result in violent disturbances’.

Firstly, I wonder what basis does the writer possess when he attributes subjective motives to the organisers of street protests, saying matter-of-factly that these organisers go ahead even though they ‘know full well’ that the reasons for the price hike cannot be pinned on the government, and that these persons are ‘not interested in’ the real reasons but are ‘just trying to politicise the issue’.

Would the writer not have been better off if he had just focused on his arguments against public assemblies, instead of trying to attack the motives of diverse persons, touching on something that he could never know as a matter of fact?

I, for one, am unimpressed by personal attacks. Experience tells me that more often than not a personal attack is employed when one’s counter-argument is too weak to strike an intellectual blow to the arguments of the other person with whom one is debating.

Secondly, the writer’s view that street demonstrations are a ‘waste of time’ indicates, to me, a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of a true democracy.

A true democracy differs from a dictatorship in many important aspects, one of which being that the people are truly the ‘boss’ in a democracy, and their elected leaders are their trustees and servants; whereas in a dictatorship the leaders (elected or otherwise) are the boss, and the people are fear-stricken servants.

A true democracy is not top down. Its life depends on the continuous participation of the people throughout the entire process of governance. There is no real democracy if the only participation that the people have is to cast their votes once in a number of years.

And that in between they must leave everything to the government on the misguided basis that the government comprises representatives chosen by the people and therefore it has a carte blanc to do what it pleases.

That is nothing more than dictatorship dressed in democracy’s skin.

In my view, one who belittles peaceful demonstrations is ignorant of the importance of people’s participation in the governance of a democratic nation, and equally oblivious to the history of the development of numerous democracies all over the world.

Thus, peaceful protests are an important part of a healthy democracy. They are not a ‘new pastime’, nor something done ‘for amusement’. Whether or not a protest on a particular subject is perceived by some to be futile is quite besides the point. Those who wish to protest, peacefully of course, have the right to do so. They are not idle minds bored with life. They are active participants of a democracy.

Thirdly, after having accused, to my mind without basis, demonstration organisers of harbouring ulterior (political) motives, the writer further weakens his own arguments by proceeding to insult the intelligence of the participants of street protests (or some of them at least), implying that they are persons who know not what they are doing and who are simply being exploited by the organisers. Again, the writer does not explain how he has come to that condescending conclusion.

Fourthly, the writer’s argument that demonstrations will ‘destabilise the nation’ does no more than echo the government’s tune. It is true that peaceful demonstrations in many other parts of the world have been known to destabilise, and even topple, the governments of the day.

That is part of a democratic process. That might be a threat to the powers-that-be who want to continue to be, but it is not a threat to the nation. To equate a threat to the power-hold of a current government with a threat to the nation can be logical only if one equates the nation with its present government.

That will be like treating the nation as belonging to the government of the day (instead of belonging to the people). That is the opposite of democracy.

To be meaningful and of practical use, democracy must belong to the people. It is time, in Malaysia, to give democracy back to the people.