Progressives and Umno politics

Last week I was immersed in the literary festival in Ubud, Bali, listening to well-known writers as they shared their progressive views on the many facets of the human condition.

Most people associate the word “progressive” to include far-sighted views on democratic systems of government, an equitable economy and a free society where personal liberty is well protected.

In political terms, a progressive country is one where laws protect the rights of all communities—including minorities—and where the courts are independent and well respected.

In other words, improving the human condition is the yardstick by which progressives are measured.

In the US, for example, the progressive movement of the 1890s  included the fight for progressive taxation, where the rich were taxed more; the fight for the rights of women generally, including their right to vote; and freeing education from the clutches of vested interests and the Church.

In the UK, reformists sometimes use the term “progressive” when they are not happy with either the Conservatives or the left-leaning socialists in Labour.

There is not much difference, however, among the three big parties on the “big issues”, such as the meaning of democracy; the need for accountability and transparency in Government; the need for the Rule of Law  to be applicable at all times; or the idea that liberty and freedom for the people of Great Britain are guaranteed.

Their differences are more on budgetary priorities, healthcare services, school systems and the role of the state in providing socioeconomic services.

By now most of us have read about the great success of Khairy Jamaluddin and Dato Sri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil at the recent Umno polls.

Everyone was ecstatic that the so-called “progressive forces” in Umno had won. In their opinion, the fact that the relatively unknown challengers (whose names many people could hardly spell) failed to unseat the powerful incumbents signalled a major political shift in Malaysian politics.

That’s how desperate Malaysians have become for change: they are willing to clutch at straws or believe in shadows if it helps them be happy with the conditions in the country.

A political party does not become something else just because some unknown challengers could not make any headway. The nature of the party—its political DNA—does not change.

The incumbents do not become “progressive’” just because they defeated challengers whose ideological viewpoints were different from theirs, just as the country did not become safer a week after the Prevention of Crime Act was passed.

I hope the supporters of the Umno “progressives” and their allies will help explain how this changes Umno in ways that we the rakyat (people) can relate to, and what policies they will bring about that are substantially different from the ones we already have.

Will Utusan Malaysia be different now? Will Dato’ Seri Zahid Hamidi lose in the polls, or is he also a progressive?  How are Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein’s views, for example, different from Tan Sri Isa Samad’s in politics, governance, integrity and accountability? How is Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir more racist than, say Datuk Seri Ali Rastum or even Zahid?

I am raising these questions because we must not treat the success of a certain gang or group as “progressive” just because they have conveniently and successfully labelled their opponents as “right wing”.

There must be real and substantial differences in their political views and thoughts before we can make this distinction. It’s not necessary for us the rakyat to take sides in the Umno political contest by lending credence and respectability when none is expected from us.

It’s better to wait and see if the progressives are real or if they are just wayang (show)—which is what Ubud is wonderfully famous for. – October 15, 2013.

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