The myth of the urban and educated voter

Recently, I came across a response to an essay I had written for another publication. In it, the author argued that my analysis overlooked the “urban, educated Malays” and suggested that they are more liberal and progressive.

That is not a new argument, of course, but it’s disappointing to hear it being subscribed and perpetuated by an academic.

The myth of the urban, educated voters can be briefly summarised as follows: On the one side, there are those who voted the opposition and they are urban, informed, educated voters. On the other side, there are those who voted the establishment and they are rural, misinformed, and uneducated voters.

This myth has manifested itself on many occasions following the last general election (GE13). Partly in response to the prime minister’s “Chinese tsunami” claim, those who are outraged by his unstatesmanlike diagnosis replaced that diagnosis with their own version of the “urban tsunami”.

Many who refused to buy into a diagnosis through the ethnic lens, including myself, bought into this idea that the country is split between the old and the new, the rural and the urban.

As much as this diagnosis comforts us with its assuring simplicity, however, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Firstly, the majority of our population work and/or stay in urban areas. The rural seats that were won by the establishment can also be attributed to the fact that when some urbanites return to their (rural) home, they voted the establishment.

According to the World Bank, Malaysia has a 74% urban population. This estimate is based on  people who stay and/or work in the urban areas as defined by national statistics. Using another measurement, however, the World Bank found our urban population to hover around 53% (15 million). Our rate of urban population growth at 4% per year is also the fastest in the region.

The fact is clear on this one: urbanites are the majority of our population and, very likely, of our voters too. Many voters work in the urban areas. They might rent a place in the city or/and go back to their home on outskirts, suburban, or rural villages during the weekend or holiday season.

Is it possible that these urbanites, upon returning to their home outside the major cities, vote for the establishment? Do we still consider them as “rural folks” even though they actually spend more time in the cities than in the village?

Do we still want to claim that the society will be more open and progressive if more rural folks move to the cities and act like urbanites?

The belief that urbanisation will necessarily lead to more progressive politics does not stack up. It may be very possible that urbanisation will exacerbate inequality and sow the seeds of bitterness and prejudices among those that are left out of economic development and progress.

Secondly, and in direct contrast to the myth of the urban-educated voters theory, the leadership of the conservative forces are not only urban but also highly-educated.

These are the people who hold prestigious titles, post-graduate doctorates, and powerful positions in the corporate and public sector. Many of them went overseas for their higher education.

These are not rural folk, Felda settlers, JKKK village chiefs or poor fishermen. They are not necessarily some well-connected cronies or subscribe to patronage. They wear suits and make presentations on their iPads.

We assume that if only the "others" are getting more educated, they would think and act like us. But just like urbanisation, education doesn’t seem to produce the outcome that we think it should. Higher education doesn’t entail that someone would be more open and progressive.

In fact, people are as equally likely to become more conservative as they go up the education ladder as they are likely to become liberal and progressive. Are we then to say they are “educated” only when they think and act like us?

Thirdly, if it’s true that Malaysia is split between rural and urban voters, then why did Johor Baru, the second largest city in the country, as well as  Setiawangsa, Putrajaya, Pulai, Pasir Gudang and Tebrau, go with the establishment in GE13?

Fourthly, is the urban-rural divide so rigid that voting for the establishment entails being a misinformed conservative?

Take the case of Kedah. Given the performance and rhetoric by the strictly conservative PAS-led state government, can we seriously attribute Umno’s victory in Kedah to the urban-rural divide?

Eric Thompson wrote an excellent essay on urban chauvinism. When those voters do not vote the way that losing politicians and their supporters had hoped, we reinforce and perpetuate “stereotypes of rural idiocy and calling rural voters uninformed and uneducated".

Why is it important to debunk the myth of the urban and educated voters? We need to have correct diagnosis of a problem, only then are we in a position to make an informed decision and take the right prescription.

Is our present diagnosis a simplistic conflation of the rural and the poor? Could a better, more accurate analysis be formed if we look closer and diligently peel the layers of a multi-faceted phenomenon? Could it be that our present discourse leaves out and fails to consider the interests of some groups?

Could those who voted for the establishment be rational, instead of ignorant or uneducated, because the alternative parties don’t have anything better to offer them, except meagre rewards for Felda settlers (keep in mind only a section of rural voters are Felda settlers)?

Instead of blaming the voters per se, could this testify to the unequal playing field and abuse of state resources, which put the incumbent at an advantage?

While it is tempting to resort to this simplistic, comforting, and almost self-righteous analysis, a more careful attention reveals the inadequacy of the diagnosis that flies in the face of evidence.

I’m not denying that the establishment has a strong grip on rural seats. I am saying that this does not entail that:

1) those who voted in these seats are rural folks who voted for the establishment because they were not exposed to urbanisation. That if only more of these rural voters emulate urban voters, then they would have voted otherwise. On the contrary, many of these people are working in the cities and are as urban as those who voted for the opposition.

2) those who voted in these seats are rural folks who voted for the establishment because they are ignorant, misinformed or uneducated. On the contrary, the leading figures tend to be highly-educated.

Voters need not be rural, ignorant, misinformed or/and uneducated if they didn’t vote the way we want them to. They are as likely to be urban, rational, and highly-educated. It is our task to move beyond the present analysis and figure out why they voted that way instead of caricaturing a diagnosis that only serves to boost our ego and moral superiority. – February 20, 2016.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer, organisation or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.