On a "Mature" Democracy

I just received news that in Malaysia, the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition has won a majority in the Malaysian Parliament.  That there was corruption and vote irregularities is not surprising to me; it is Malaysia, after all.  But what interested me was Prime Minister Najib Razak's claim that the "[election] results show a trend of polarization which worries the government.  If it is not addressed, it can create tension or division in the country."  And then, "We have to show the world that we are a mature democracy."

I agree and yet disagree.  Where I agree is that polarization is worrying and has the potential to negatively affect the well-being of the citizenry.  But I am referring to an "ideological polarization" such as that in the United States.  Such an ideological polarization is characterized by its political fundamentalism and socio-economic messianism.  In other words, the terrible lie that one narrowly-conceived political, economic, and social platform is the magic key that would unlock the way to economic prosperity, international-political influence, and imperial domination.

When combined with an evangelical-religious element (and here, I include states like Iran where politics is colored with religious streaks), it forges a deadly connection.  Religion will rely on the State for its legitimacy, and the latter will sap the former of all its moral authority.  Both will rise together, and both will fall.  Christian truth will be silenced in favor of the desires of the State.  I will never forget when, in the name of "freedom," there were Christians who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  God only knows how they managed to see the invasion as justice.  One person I know even compared Saddam Hussein to Satan!  Obviously, s/he was familiar with Hal Lindsey's quasi-biblical (actually, not-biblical-at-all) The Late, Great Planet Earth.  In doing so, Christians rubbed elbows with injustice.

Thus, I have always asserted that being a witness for Christ does not involve hijacking the machinery of the State to accomplish the mission of the Church.  To be a witness for Christ is simply to be a Christian.  It doesn't mean being a good Christian politician, or a good Christian businessman, or a good Christian anything.  To be a Christian is to do good politics, not politics as usual.  In fact, I am tempted to say that to be a Christian is to advance good politics.  To be a Christian is to do good business, not business as usual, or even advance the idea of what good business is.  (I should note that the reverse is not true: one who practices good politics is not necessarily a Christian.)

If polarization is ideological, then PM Najib is right.  I am concerned about such polarization in the United States.  Rationality is optional, national well-being is tossed out of the window in favor of fulfilling narrow interests, some of which were tied to religious convictions.  Politics, then, becomes no different than the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry; it all becomes a game, with the losers being, ironically, the voters without the capital to command political interests.  If polarization is, as I suspect PM Najib is defining it, increasing numbers of voters voting for the opposition, then I disagree.  In fact, this is tied to his second comment: that all this is necessary to "show the world [Malaysia is] a mature democracy."

What is a "mature democracy"?  Many people think that the United States is an example of a mature democracy.  Of course, it depends on what one means by "mature."  If one defines maturity in terms of one's ability to get one's way, then of course America is the beacon of democratic righteousness.  We're all about "my way or the highway." This is politics as we see it right now!  It's not about "We the people" but about "We the vested political interests."

For me at least, a mature democracy consists of voters who don't vote the "right" people into power, but vote qualified people into power.  Of course, because qualifications matter moreso than "right-ness", the candidates for office need to persuade voters that their records are indicative of their ability to ensure that the nation is well-administered in accordance to its laws.  This requires that voters possess important basic skills, such as critical thinking, and the actual maturity to put aside party interests in favor of what is good for the nation.  This requires, in other words, responsible voters - voters who take seriously the voting privilege and who inform themselves sufficiently to vote well.

This, I think, is key to the notion of "freedom."  Freedom is not "what I want."  I want to be a billionaire - why can't I be free to steal them?  Why can't I infringe on others' property to secure my freedom, in this case?  No.  Furthermore, freedom is not the ability to choose one's governing leaders.  There's no point to freedom if one chooses poor leaders.  What we need is responsibility.  It requires a critical analysis of both the candidates' abilities and records, and the plans s/he has for the country.  It is easy to promise, it is hard to put it in action, and it's even more difficult if the candidates are not qualified to do so.

What I am opposed to is the notion that we should vote for people who serve our interests.  I am a believer of total depravity (or, at least, near-total depravity) and original sin, enough such that I have little faith in peoples' abilities to know the goodness of their interests.  It is for that reason I do not believe in "freedom."  When people vote based on their own tastes and preferences, then voting becomes a matter of voting based on "right-ness", not qualifications.  This leads to ideological polarization, because the governing leaders, far from being qualified leaders, end up being ideological stooges.

Is a "mature democracy" one that simply validates the ruling party, even amidst corruption?  No.  PM Najib cannot expect Malaysia to be a mature democracy until votes are fair and that Malaysia has the necessary infrastructure to raise up talented critical voters who vote on qualification, not on the benefits they receive from the government.  He can only look forward to greater rifts between ideological camps, and increased ideological polarization.  In the same sense, the United States is not a mature democracy.  Is it more mature than Malaysia?  Maybe (and, it could be a big maybe).  But then again, a "mature democracy" could be an ideal to strive for; impossible in reality, but nonetheless a good goal.