Which Hat Are You Wearing?

Many people fail to realise that roles in life takes over your life most of the time - as I said, without you realising it or not wanting to realise it. Of course it seems almost trite to say that we take on many roles in life – parent, worker, friend, citizen and so on. That’s trite and is of no problem. It does not cause you or others any problem by itself. We are naturally multi-tasking creatures even before the word “multi-tasking” was commercialised.

However, when I say “people fail to realise that roles in life take over their life”, I indicate something sinister, something that is not so nice and can be monstrous most of the times. People always have a main role that they invest of their life in, relative to the other roles that they play. Many a times, for the ordinary person who thinks he is going on with his life blissfully; his main role has been forced upon him – only because he has chosen to NOT think and/or to be a slave of others in life.

When I was 16 and in form 4, I was troubled by the adults’ insistence about a lot of things. Ranging from how one should bersalam or handshake to the “importance” of schools and higher education. Quite frankly, even then I could not see how those things are important as they exist and even now I think I am correct. Just to digress for a bit, take the handshake or the bersalam, which require physical contact between your palms and the others’ palms, which is projected as an “accepted” way of greeting someone. I used to be paranoid about it (and still am) because I have seen many times what happens in the men’s toilets! This is over and above all the scratching, touching here and there and then transmitting to you the bacteria on the pretext of “good social behaviour”! To top it all, some even go so far as to sell the idea that a firm handshake marks self-confidence – this would put Tun Dr Mahathir as a person with no confidence as he has a gentle handshake (which I approve).

As I was saying, in form 4, I realised that adults are very preoccupied in “forcing” onto you roles that you should play and some of my peer-mates were already subtly indoctrinated. Some of the kids will play the role of bullies and some others will have to play the role of the victim. When you belong to a group (as you must in school), you are expected to take on certain roles too. You are either the one making fun of the other members or the one who is being made fun of. This role stays so long as you want to be part of the group. If you beong to one group, you cannot belong to others. I recall I never belonged exclusively to one single group but belonged to many, diverse groups, including the ones considered the “best” and “worst” in school.  This was a taboo but I got away with my charm, my tongue and my understanding of perceptions of “reward and punishment”.  Ah-hem. Ah-hem. Furthermore, Geminis get bored with uniformity and familiarity very fast!

This obsession with playing a role to the extent of it being completely unrealistic, “unidealistic”, damaging and mostly ludicrous continues into most people’s adult’s life. It has become so common that this sickness has been accepted as normal, acceptable behaviour.

Hence, if you have a strong interest in religious issues and religious studies, you are not “allowed” to dance, sing and have a good time in public. This interest in things “godly” is supposed to divorce you from things “worldly”. What if you happen to believe that everything, I mean everything is indeed godly and hence, you want to talk about God in the pub? Sure, this is going to cause discomfort on both sides, I mean to those who say “tsk, tsk” and those other who say “er…I am feeling guilty” but that proves my point.

BUt this sickness has reached a societal scale such that the whole society frowns upon a “religious” person dancing on stage. Frankly, one of my many fantasies has been to do a moon walk on stage as an introduction or an interlude while I am talking about the beauty of the Quran as a guidance for humankind. I am so sure, those who can’t even pronounce “Michael Jackson” will be on my case saying I am insulting the religion! Why must I allow these misfits to undermine my multi-talents???

It is both a blessing and a tragedy of life that you often meet people with whom you cannot have fun talking intellectually nor can you have fun just being silly. Often, people do not get it that there is a big difference between choosing to be silly for fun and being stupid as a matter of ignorance. Too many try to impose roles out of ignorance but appear to succeed because the ignorant are usually in the majority – victory by brawn not by brains. Are these not school bullies grown up into positions of power?

So many will themselves into “adult behaviour” by sheer imitating of other adults who themselves have never thought about what is “adult behaviour”. Hence, you have ignorant adults creating values and modes of behaviour for others to follow. Being an ardent reader of history and human behaviour all my life, this worries me – the sub standards set by sub-standard minds when they are in the majority! We have to wait a lifetime or more for them to understand and mature. In the meantime, the cast us into the role of a “rebel” or a “trouble maker” or an “impractical person”.

Needless to say, politicians are always the best examples of what is wrong in society or examples of anomalies of human behaviours. They not only are role-players, they are comical at that. They become comical because they forget what they say or was asked to “stand for” (by their advisers) when they play different roles. So, you have a politician for example, talking about press freedom at the Press Association dinner and then passing laws in parliament literally restricting any form of freedom of expression. You have them talking about democracy and then denying freedom of faith. And the list goes on. This is not surprising because, most of what they say does not come from their heart nor from knowledge. It is all about populist stances and protection of vested interests.

The sick obsession with dominant role playing that I cannot understand is among Muslims. They play the “role of Muslims” faithfully when they are in the mosque or at a “religious function” or attending “religious rituals”. However, they become very different when they play other dominant roles, for example at their work or business or profession or career. For instance, is there or should there be any difference in behaviour between a Muslim enforcement officer and a non-Muslim one? How about Judges, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, civil servants, politicians, and so on? Should there be a difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim one? Or does the role matter? Being a Muslim, I cannot help but feel completely irked whenever I have to deal with a Muslim enforcement officer or civil servant who behaves in a very “unIslamic way”.  To me this is a result of confusion about roles.

Anyway, there is so much more to write on roles, especially something which, at 16 years old, I labelled as “the victim of categorisation”. I now know that this label can be aptly applied to analyse how we relate to classification and stereotyping of races and so on. But that has to wait another day – if.

But for now the question is – why are we not free to wear all the hats that we choose?

Peace !

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - Part 2 : Politics and Democracy

Politics and Democracy

Democracy we say is the government of the people, by the people for the people. It is, we boast, a system that allows the people to form a government and run it by consensus. We say it is a majority rule government. Does that “majority” include you and me and the 15 year old child who does know where to get the money to go to school?

I have written extensively on the weakness and myth of the party system in a democracy on this blog and elsewhere, especially on the need for a radical reform of the political culture. Any system is workable only if the general culture is useful and positive. Where the general culture is primitive, the system becomes a tool of an elitist few. In a democracy, the party system too is controlled by the select few who determine who rise and fall as leaders. In other words, you are presented with the candidates to choose from. Most likely, these candidates rise in the party not through competency or ability but through money and patronage.

Many also vote along party lines without caring to analyse the long term consequences to their own future and the Nation. Due to various factors, including apathy, many do not really know why or whom they have voted.  Many more do not even vote thinking that it is a useless exercise without realising that by not voting, they too have made a decision which will impact the future of the nation. In such a scenario, the myth of the so-called majority government in a democracy formed by consensus of the People is clearly evident.

In a democracy, the effective competition for votes is largely confined to established parties even though there is a new trend around the world where independents are gaining greater acceptance by the voters. In the USA, for example, it is largely confined to Republican and Democratic, in UK it is Conservative and Labour while in Malaysia it is PAS and UMNO. Other parties that exist may align to any of these established parties. They get together by consensus among the top leaders of the respective parties and the general body of members generally accept the “consensus” which is then presented to the public as a “coalition consensus”. (Please note that in reality, the decisions are actually made by a few party officials)

Party consensus prevents party members from voicing and struggling for what is right if it is against party interests. In many instances, if you analyse, you will find that such party consensus has caused tremendous injustice and cruelty to mankind. You will find for example, political parties unashamedly diving citizens along racial and religious lines while at the same time they may utter that we are all “children of God”. Minorities are treated as if they do not exit on earth. Consensus allows seemingly “good” people to do evil things. When they hold power, evil values may be enacted as laws.

Elected representatives, either in Parliament or in State Assembly have the power to pass laws that affect the  ordinary citizen's life. Again, in the Parliament and the State Assembly, the laws are passed by the consensus of the majority. The issue is: have the representatives passed the laws in the interest of the Nation or for party  or vested interests? Even a bad or evil law is still law if passed. Did the voter also consent to bad laws to be passed when they voted? Is it not then the implicit responsibility of the representatives to seek the consent of their constituents? After all, they can make time to knock on every door to canvass for votes during election time. The truth of the matter is that many ordinary citizens do not know what laws are passed. The respective elected representatives also do not make it a point to explain the draft bills to their respective constituencies. Hence, the so called democratic consensus under our system is illusory and a myth. It is in fact power wielding by an elitist few under the guise of consensus.

Many ordinary citizens also fail to observe how the wealth of the Nation is distributed or they may have resigned themselves to accept it as a matter of fact beyond their control (where then is the consensus if this is so?). Is it a mere coincidence of talent that most of the wealth is in the hands of those who are either related to or aligned to those who hold political power? If indeed democracy is the government of the people, by the people for the people by consensus, did the People consent to the wealth being distributed to the leaders’ relatives and friends?

Where is the justice when we have the bulk of the wealth of the nation in the hands of the few whence we have the majority of the People struggling to have their families’ ends met? In this manner, the myth of consensus has visited cruelties on many ordinary families because the Nation’s resources have been cunningly and deceitfully taken away from them. While I bask in my RM6 million bungalow, you are struggling to pay the loan of your middle cost or low cost house! Obviously, they think their children deserve it more than yours or mine. I have merely given an example which is merely the tip of the iceberg!!!

To me, if indeed consensus is real and not a myth, based on the wealth that our country possessed, we should today have completely free education for all who want to study up to tertiary level. However, today almost every young adult is saddled with a study loan even before they begin to work! Is this not cruel? I can go on listing the things that could have been put in place if indeed consensus was real and not a myth, but I leave it to you to add the list on this blog.

The myth of consensus in politics is not understood by many because of the sophistication with which it is managed and engineered. It is also very intertwined with economic control of the Nation’s wealth. I dare say that it is an art beyond the comprehension of the average citizen. Politics is a sophisticated game of information and perception management swinging the citizens’ emotions between fear and hope. In politics, People in general are made to perceive that they are part of the consensus.

Why did you vote?

Many fail to realize that democracy today has been relegated to casting your votes at the ballot box. Once you vote, you have practiced democracy! By consensus, we seem to have agreed that once a person is elected as an MP or State Assemblyman, he has the mandate to do what he or his party pleases.

When you voted, did you give a blank cheque to the candidate to do what he or his party pleases or did you have something else on your mind? If so, what recourse do you have as a voter to oust or punish him if he breaches your mandate? These are matters which even the political scientists have not sorted out because most people seem to have accepted the system as it is. Since merdeka, I have not heard of any seminars or forums to address this issue! Hence, political thought in this country remains puerile and status quo.  With the greatest of respect, I note that even those political scientists in this country who analyse such things do so within the framework of the existing model which we inherited from our colonial masters or from those who graduate from syllabuses crafted by our colonial masters. This being the case, there will not be any radical improvements, maybe just cosmetic or short term.

When you analyse the workings of the so-called democratic system in this country you will conclude this: that every citizen has delegated the absolute right to the elected “representatives” to do as they or their party pleases during the duration of their term. You give them the absolute political power to shape your life. I say “absolute right” because our society has not put in place any user friendly counter measure for the ordinary voter to have recourse to in the event there is a breach of mandate. You just have to wait for the next election by which time; you will be successfully manipulated to repeat the error. (Yes, I do not have confidence in the majority of the voters to think or to care as yet.)

I have often said that the voters are like rats in a maze that has only three exits. The rats think they are struggling to find the exit and that they are making a choice of which exit. They do not know that the choices have already been made for them. Like the rats, voters never pause to think that maybe they want to redesign the maze or even do away with it. Unfortunately, many who think they are thinking outside the box are actually still within the box but in a different corner.

The truth of the matter is this: democracy gives you the illusion of the consensus of the People. Hence, it is a myth and not a fact.

Peace !

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - Part 3: Religion

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - 1

Image thanks to here.

At the very outset, I would like to state this – consensus has its relevance and role. Now my thoughts on the subject:

Is the so called consensus real and founded on sound knowledge?

We like to think that one of the marks of a civilized society is the ability to reach consensus on important issues affecting society. In fact, consensus has today become as normal and unconscious as breathing in many important aspects of our life. Consensus indicates agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.  The masses then adjust and manage their lives within the framework of consensus that has been presented to them – unthinkingly.

In almost every aspect of our lives – corporate, family, politics, religion, etc – consensus determines and controls our perspective of things.

It is generally accepted that consensus is vital for life to progress and the opposite of it will be chaos. If you belong to any social unit, you are expected to adhere to consensus; otherwise you will be ostracized as a trouble maker. The mindset of consensus is so ingrained in most of us that we are unable to see its clear and present dangers.

Consensus is also equated with “decision of the majority”. We have been brought up to think that decisions made by the majority are always good for all of us. We therefore must “respect” or adhere to the norms of the majority. Minority views are suppressed, not given any thought or even ridiculed.

I can understand the usefulness of consensus to achieve certain objectives in society. However, I will not extol it to be the “high virtue” that many seem to have unthinkingly accepted. Consensus is only useful when you understand its consequences and limitations. It appears to me that preference for consensus alone (to the exclusion of differing views) is indicative of the human being’s failure to rise from mental primitiveness.

Consensus, as practiced in our lives universally, has created more problems than benefits. My informal study of human history seems to suggest that consensus has been a major tool of oppression of the masses, reformers and intellectuals causing untold confusion, misery and cruelties.  Shocked at this proposition? Let me explain.

I view the unthinking obsession with consensus as people’s readiness to surrender their lives to a very small elitist group in their society. Most people actually live their life allowing it to be shaped by unseen human hands under the convenient tool called “consensus”.

I must confess that I began analysing the usefulness of consensus when I was compelled to think of the following verse from the Quran, some 15 years back:

“And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie”. (Quran 6:116)

The above verse seems to suggest that majority views are often a result of conjectures (assumptions/guesswork) and untruths/lies/unfounded premises. I suppose this makes sense as any fact or truth is independent of the numbers who believe in it. As we often hear, a lie repeated a million times is still a lie and a truth of one is still the truth.

Since the Quran seems to suggest that majority views are a result of conjectures, it is therefore incumbent upon the thinking person to verify, ascertain and evaluate the views, norms or anything that he hears or experiences (see Quran 17:36).

In this paper, I shall attempt to analyse various aspects of our lives that have been wrecked by the myth of consensus and the untold misery and injustices that has unfolded.

Politics and Democracy

Democracy we say is the government of the people, by the people for the people. It is, we boast, a system that allows the people to form a government and run it by consensus. We say it is a majority rule government. Does that “majority” include you and me and the 15 year old child who does not know where to get the money to go to school? 

To be continued in Part 2.

Peace !