As the BN is about to hold its special convention (postponed means it will be held sometime soon), it might be worthwhile to look at two books banned with special reference to racial politics.
In my study of non-sectarian (meaning non-racial) politics in Malaysia, I came across these books and assume that the ban has since been lifted as they are available at the UM library.
One was by Professor Van Vorys entitled "Democracy without Consensus" and the other was RK Vasil's "Politics in a Plural Society". Both books were published within two years of the May 13 race riots and about the time the BN was being formed.
Both books point out the complexity of Malaysian society, the great income disparity and the challenges our political leaders faced managing the country.
To contemporary eyes, one can be forgiven for not understanding why these books were banned. But upon careful reading, one discovers that both authors had pointed out a systemic problem inherent in the Alliance and later, the BN system.
Van Vorys showed that the Alliance system was the result of sheer necessity, the need to form a government that could unite the country and yet be acceptable to the departing British administrators.
Such an achievement was made possible by sheer force of character, in particular that of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his lieutenants. Till today, the charisma of the Tunku and the first cabinet is the most powerful gel holding the BN together.
Vasil pointed out that once independence was achieved, the Alliance had to forge a new nation. The euphoria of "Merdeka" gave the first cabinet some time to put down a solid foundation in foreign affairs, monetary policy and basic administration.
But, once the euphoria left the ground, the fundamental problem of sharing power based upon ethnicity came to haunt the Alliance. They began to lose votes to the political left and PAS.
After May 13, the Alliance's model of power-sharing was re-modeled and the BN was born. One of its architects, Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu, is still around. Whilst the personality cult was continued, the BN strategy is essentially the same as the Alliance's – forestall the fundamental issue of nation over race whilst entrenching power in the hands of the prime minister.
The opiate offered up to the masses was in the form of development, progress and material improvement. Dr Mahathir, in his ambition to make Malaysia a developed nation, expanded the powers of the executive tremendously.
All the while, Malaysians were reminded that there was no other way the country could be governed. We are not racists but racialists. Thus comparisons with Israel and South Africa miss the mark. For the longest time, we practiced apartheid (separate development for separate ethnic groups) willingly.
To recapitulate, the fundamental problems of the Alliance and the BN stems from its origins as a political partnership cobbled together to meet the goal of independence. Over time, the means became the end; thus the nation state is perpetually kept in limbo.
An outside observer once said: "Malaysia is many (ethnic)-nations occupying the same geographical space".
Secondly, the BN cannot help but keep ethnic groups separate to remain in power. This explains why so many are trying so hard to turn the Kugan issue into a race issue. Race is the language of Malaysian politics.
Thirdly, as Chandra Muzaffar once said in Aliran , "ethnic-based economic policies" create crony capitalists, a class of elite Malaysians dependent on the government for their economic status.
That was in 1988, twenty years later, that class has taken over the political parties that enriched them. But more troubling, in order to keep their race-based logic alive, they actually have to make sure that the objectives of the NEP are never achieved, hence the NDP.
Of course, there is something called the Law of Unforeseen Circumstances, outcomes that even the brightest cannot foresee. The creation of a large middle class is bringing life back to the fundamental issues about nation state, being Malaysian and the creation of a more equitable society.
The liberalisation of the financial system, albeit more conservatively implemented in Malaysia than elsewhere, has resulted in more home ownership. This makes for a more stable country as fewer people will riot if their homes will be destroyed in the process. But it also shows up our terrible inequality.
Technological change, particularly the Internet, has made dissent possible. It is not that politicians were smarter in the past, they were just less exposed. This makes it very difficult for the not so smart to draw circles around us.
This also means sacred cows like "race", "religion" and the "NEP" can be freely discussed without the nation collapsing into chaos. Dr Mahathir can testify to that with his world famous blog.
If the BN is going to reform itself and the Pakatan Rakyat is in the process of "formation", they must look into these issues and offer a creative way forward for all Malaysians. It is not that Pakatan Rakyat has become popular overnight, it is that Malaysians have moved ahead and now share some of their ideals.
Those who voted against the BN out of frustration may now vote for Pakatan out of conviction. Younger voters already do. If the BN cannot win back the middle ground, sufficiently reinvent itself to be attractive to young voters and implement policies that will win national confidence; and do all that in four years, its mandate to rule may be in serious doubt come 2013.
This is because Malaysians no longer want to be a nation-in-waiting. The challenge for the BN thus goes deeper than mere name calling, racial one-upmanship and being heroes or demons. The reality is that since March 8, it has yet to convince Malaysians that race-based politics can bring the nation forward.
