The Politics of Grace
By Rachel Leow ~ November 7th, 2008. Filed under: Malaysian Narratives, TOM_Main.
Written by Rachel Leow
When I think of the American election and the way in which it was won, I am endlessly struck by the fact that such a very great war was won with such very small battles. In the most literal, immediate sense, one can see this on any election map of America, with its states dotted here red and there blue. One can zoom further into the map and see that each state, each city, each town, perhaps even each house, is divided up into its own red and blue mosaic patterns, right down to the individual Republican and Democrat. The battle for America, won yesterday by Barack Obama, was won out of individual differences - sometimes a matter of razor thin percentage points, consolidated by majority at the voter’s level, the constituency level, the state level, the national level.
But there were other, perhaps more important battles - small battles that had been fought out within the battleground of the single individual and his or her place in history. To me, Obama’s presidency - the first black presidency in the history of the United States - was won at this micro level of the individual, generation to generation to the present, battling against his or her very self: against old prejudices, against hardened consensus, against apathy, against history. To me, that’s why the Democrats won: their small battles at the grassroots reflected the very nature of the larger war itself. We cannot be overwhelmed enough by what this victory means historically: one hundred and forty-three years after the end of the American Civil War, and four hundred years of racial hatred, bigotry and injustice since the inception of black slavery in the United States, the American people have said, with their ballots: Enough. We are no longer the people we were.
Markers of progress
This election, to me, attests to the maturation of a people. It tells me, for example, that over time, a people can move from the idea that black people are not really human to not only the idea that there could be a black leader of the United States, but that it is downright shameful to admit that the colour of his skin could figure in your vote. That signals, to me, a victory of public opinion: that today, a significant majority of Americans, even if they did still feel prejudiced against voting for a black man, would probably at least lower their voice when saying so in public - or perhaps, in defiance, strike a tone of belligerence and become defensive. I have heard voters snap: So what if I’m prejudiced? That is a question which knows that its receiving audience has changed, and disapproves. Its belligerence is a tacit acknowledgment of defeat.
And this tells me that such a battle can be won - that change, to use an awfully overused word, is possible - that, given time, strength and leadership, such change may even be possible here in Malaysia. Dare I dream that one day, a voter will have to snap, peevishly: So what if I want a Malay PM? while his interlocutor stares incredulously at him? But how terribly young we in Malaysia are, I thought, as I watched Obama address a nation which has taken two hundred years to change its mind on race - and even today, in some places, still falters.
Original sin
Obama, in a moving speech this March, said that the American declaration of independence in 1776 would later be stained by the nation’s ‘original sin of slavery’. This ‘original sin’, he said, would make a persistent mockery of the Constitution upon which the country was founded - a Constitution that promised its people liberty, justice and a more perfect (and perfectable) union. And it is at the foot of this original sin of Slavery, that great blot on the national conscience, that America’s perfection should begin.
When I heard that, I thought: What is Malaysia’s original sin? Or in other words, what is the singular injustice which we have wrought unto ourselves, and upon which we, too, should begin to build our own perfection?
Like America, our problems are also born out of racial discontent. We might rail against our colonial heritage, and say that it is solely because of people like Furnivall, Winstedt, Clementi and all our largely well-intentioned but racist British officers, that our society divided racially in the way that it did. Those who do will be led to the erroneous conclusion that we have already built our perfection with the flagstones of Merdeka; that Malaysia, freed from the British grip, is by definition already perfect. But I do not think it’s possible to abjure responsibility for the past fifty years, in which we have had our Merdeka, in which we been our own people, but during which we chose, and still choose to remain racially divided. In a way, I think, we too have been guilty of a kind of slavery, though not of the physical kind. We have enslaved ourselves to a false idea: that we cannot but cast one another as lesser and eternally divided beings, because the ‘facts’ of linguistic, cultural and religious difference will not allow reconciliation; because the ‘reality’ of money politics condemns all hope of unity as naive; because this, because that, and fifty years of ‘just because’.
Our original sin is this weakness, this self-enslavement. We are caught in the thrall of race politics. If in the creation of our divided society the British were once our slave drivers, we ourselves have since taken the whip into our own hands.
What can America teach us?
I want to suggest three concrete lessons that the recent American elections can teach Malaysian politics - or rather, three examples of what is possible, and what we should dare to hope for.
Firstly, democracy. This American election was a chance to see a healthy, functioning, two-party democracy in full swing: a democracy in which the differences between the parties are ideological and significantly distinct, and not simply a matter of incumbent and antithesis, i.e. UMNO and not-UMNO. The axes of contention were not ‘Ruling Party’ and ‘Opposition’, but one qualified potential candidate against another. The campaigning period was exhilarating, extensive, and above all, genuinely competitive and strongly grounded in issues. Because the process was so fully transparent, people inside and outside America were able to watch the shifts and trends of the election like hawks. There were pundits, but then there will always be. There was a free, flourishing press coverage of the entire campaign. There was not - or at least it does not seem as though there was - any electoral corruption; only the usual and expected technical inefficiencies of getting 305 million people to fill out a ballot correctly.
How shamefully, terrifyingly unlike Malaysian elections!
Secondly, the lack of violence. The overturning of the eight-year incumbents did not cause riots. More importantly, even in the wake of the senseless bigotry that 9/11 provoked, the election of a black man to the presidency of the United States, amidst half-baked whispers that he might be - God forbid - a Muslim, has not in fact resulted in widespread bloodshed. For all the grumbling and disappointment, the American people have assented to the mechanisms of democracy, without violence. Disagreements will of course dog the new government; there will be debates, anger, frustration, bitter compromise — but there will be no riots. Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, peaceful change and peaceful disagreement is, in fact, possible; and violence, as they say, begets violence.
Grace politics
But what made the American elections truly exceptional for me, and what I hope Malaysia can learn from, is, thirdly, grace. Hilary Clinton’s defeat in the democratic nominations must have been a terrible pill to swallow, but she swallowed it with stupendous grace, rallying behind Obama in the interest of party solidarity. Her and her husband’s efforts must have done immeasurable good to unite the democratic vote behind a man who, after all, lost her a chance at the American presidency. John McCain’s defeat must have been, if anything, a hundred times more bitter; yet a more gracious, respectful concession speech could not possibly have been issued, still less from a man for whom this long, arduous election would be his last chance to achieve the zenith of a fifty-year career. “I hold in my heart,” he said, “nothing but love for this country and for all its citizens…[and] whether they supported me or Senator Obama, I wish Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president.”
Such grace is also an indicator of maturity - the maturity of its politicians, but also of a body politic who has come to expect nothing less from them. It is a grace unburdened by systemic political corruption, by dirty money, by the brazen disregard for justice that issues so readily and haughtily from Putrajaya; it is grace born out of a spirit, however imperfect, of democracy. And need I mention President-Elect Obama himself? - “To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn,” he said, “I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.” Dato’ Seri Najib Abdul Razak, if you lost our vote next year, could you bless your opponent, or would you draw your keris? And if you won the prime ministership, would you listen to those who could not give you their vote, or would you, again, draw your keris against them?
The dream
On March 8th this year, Malaysians, too, had seemed to say ‘Enough — we are no longer the people we were’; but it seems we were not listened to, and I cannot help thinking now, as I watch the old divisions reappear and the old politics creep gleefully back, that it was not really true. Is grace even possible for Malaysia? Perhaps not now. Perhaps not next elections, or even this century. But does it not make you dream? Are we so foolish to hope? — as foolish as, say, Martin Luther King might once have been thought to be?
This year, the American elections have given hope, I think, to more than just Americans. It shows us that the smallest battles can win the greatest wars; that our daily struggles within ourselves against prejudice, against apathy, against history, and above all to understand what it might mean to be ‘Malaysian’ can amass over time. In coming to know what we are, we may yet redeem ourselves — and our sin. This is a fight that has been fought and won, for Obama’s election tells me that as of November 4th 2008, Malaysia can found herself on a dream that has already been realized — however great the tasks of rebuilding America will be for the new President, and however closely disillusion and disappointment threaten his presidency, a milestone has been crossed. And it shows us that that we too, through the waging of small battles for justice — for RPK, for the right to Dan Lain-Lain, for free and fair elections, for Altantuya, for the Malaysia we know to exist in the interstices of race politics — may someday, insh’allah, ourselves know the grace of a more perfect union.
End.
Rachel Leow is a Ph. D. student reading history at Cambridge University, and she is tired of race politics.
November 7th, 2008 at 13:35
Well said. Exactly my sentiments
November 7th, 2008 at 18:14
That was a rather thought provoking article. It brought back memories of my childhood when my younger brother and myself would declare that we wanted to be Prime Minister when we grew up. It was a reminder of a time when I thought that all things were possible, when differences in race and religion only meant that there was more to celebrate and more open houses and “makan” sessions to enjoy with friends of all faiths. Little did we understand at the time that in the nation of Malaysia as it stood then and stands today, this would not be possible as we were of Indian descent. Our parents only told us later in life that they just did not have the heart to explain the way Malaysian politics worked.
Perhaps Obama’s victory shows us all that the dream of a minority leading a nation can survive from childhood and be expressed in the adult world. What matters most is that we choose a Malaysian to lead us, not an Indian, a Malay, a Chinese, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, etc. I don’t think that we’ll realise this in my lifetime but I can only hope that this monumentous event in the USA moves us a step closer in that direction.
November 7th, 2008 at 18:23
I have tears in my eyes when I read this…so eloquently put…….a noble case of “love for this country and for all its citizens” rather than inward looking and self perserving politics. If Americans can, why not Malaysian.
November 7th, 2008 at 22:14
Wel-written article, and the correct sentiments too. The gulf is wide indeed between Malaysia and the US in such matters, but the writer is right in pointing out Malaysia’s relative youth in nation-building. This does not excuse ourt failures, but should provide hope and inspiration to all who despair inpatiently for a new Malaysia. The time will come, if only we try as hard as Obama and Co. However I would like to point out one more difference between our nations. The writer asks if Najib will concede gracefully if he loses our vote next year. What vote, in a new GE? For the fact remains that Malaysians do not as a whole elect their leader. Only UMNO delegates do. BN, where is the democracy in that?
November 7th, 2008 at 23:50
i wish i could share your euphoria and warm feelings towards the events that happened. however, i fear that the mass media has managed to pull off one of its greatest ever coups - the selling of a wolf as a sheep.
i sincerely hope that i am wrong, but i predict that obama will turn out to be just as bad as bush, if not worse.
the truth has already begun to emerge with the appointment of his chief of staff.
November 8th, 2008 at 09:45
I agree with Rachel in her “politics of grace”. Well said and clearly many of our Malaysian citizens want to see this happen in our beautiful country. But I have a sneaking feeling that Obama is a lot of media hype and he could be just another Bush. Yes.. Ryder, I see your point.
November 8th, 2008 at 14:50
I enjoy reading Rachel Leow’s article. It is balanced and thought-provoking. I wish Malaysia well.
November 9th, 2008 at 18:04
IN Malaysia the battle is far , far away to culmination. it is really a start , germ state now - ie the battle to be a unfettered Malaysian Nation and Peopled by Malaysian first and refer to other distinctive charateristic’s later
America had it first blood with Linclon in 1840’s - civil war - the nation really did not settled the equality of Man at that time - remember the had equality of all man stated clearly in constituion but did “not treat blacks , certainly the native american’s as equal” - after the civil war, Slaves were freed but there were a lot of segregation within the society - schools, universities, towns - u had literally black and white towns..people wanted it that way(at least sum)
In 1950’s we had Martin Luther King, Malcom X and host of others again championing such rights and into the kennedy era
remember apart from rights and other groups holding political america to ransom - people who propagated change were assisnated one after one
Lincoln, Dr King, Malcom X, JFK, His bro robert Kennedy, and finally in late 60’s things got changed - constituion of america first and into ground level where companies , schools have specific laws and acts banning racism and bigotory
So people spent at least a 150 yrs post civil war after the first fight for freedom of current norms and there were people who were willing to die for the course
now in malaysia - we had freedom from negotiation by Tunku with the brits and there was peaceful passing over of power, even 1969 which minorly ugly(nothing in comparison to America or India in struggle for changes) - 1971 power to Tun Razak was mostly peaceful - the communist oppression was great - but they did not win
but on our struggle for the second freedom like What Martin Luther king inspired - we this has not begun yet. yes RPK, Hindraf a few went to detention for their believes but it has hardly started - now you would need real heros who are prepared to die for convitions of equality and meritrocracy and socialist conviction ot help the real poor (defined by income group)
- since i have not seen anything like the likes of India or America at the moment do not beleive things will change.
it is propobably 100 years for a true 2 party system in my mind atleast for Malaysia
November 10th, 2008 at 14:26
A note on the comments above:
At times we often read statements along the lines of ‘Country A had 400 years to develop into a democracy and so we need to wait too,’ etc. Now let us address this fallacy head on, shall we?
The French lived under feudal rule for more than 1000 years before the French revolution overturned all that. There was no germination process, no long evolutionary chain to speak of. The point we need to remember is that when change happens, it is always contingent, immediate and radical- hence the rupture that we call historical change.
It would therefore be difficult to argue that America could only have had a non-white president TODAY after 400 years of slavery and discrimination, as if there was a ‘use by’ date to racism and as if there is a time-lag before racism expires. This is a non-deterministic reading of history that somehow removes agency and responsibility from the historical process, but it is also a dangerous fallacy that disempowers us.
My reading of Rachel’s article above leads me to the opposite conclusion; namely that the Americans decided to vote for the best man and realised that the settled assumptions of the past were redundant. It is true that decades of positive image building of American blacks in the media helped to pave the way for Obama’s rise, but the bottom line is that this was a historical moment that was realised in the immediate present.
The lesson for Malaysia and Malaysians is that we need not wait 400 years before we entertain the idea of non-racialised politics. We can go ahead right now, this very minute, and begin with the simple (and correct) conclusion that race politics is dangerous, illogical and counter-productive, period.
November 11th, 2008 at 01:24
Thurgood Marshall, first black Supreme Court judge and one appointed by Lyndon Johnson, had this comment on the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court bench: “A black snake is still a snake.”
Race has long been largely of secondary importance to American opinion shapers than class. There were free blacks even during the time of the Revolution. On the other hand, even whites needed some wealth, often in the form of property, to be qualified to vote.
That’s not to say race has no role in the elite’s mental makeup: as Hannah Arendt pointed out, racism has always been part of the imperialist ideology. But class trumps most of the time - indeed, the entire debate on federal versus states rights could be seen as explorations on how the howling mob, i.e. the common people, could be kept out of political power.
Just another thought - to Robert Bellah America’s original sin was the robbing and extermination of its native peoples. So serious was this sin that the “Covenant” between God and the Founding Fathers was thereby nullified. His appropriately-named book, “The Broken Covenant,” detailed ways for America to overcome this sin.
LChuah
November 11th, 2008 at 11:42
I agree with Farish that we do not need 400 years to change the ridiculous race based system of politics here however, I do not believe that 50 years is enough for this country to do so. This year has been a turning point for the country and the fact that the politicians and the mainstream media under its control are in a state of denial does not negate the fact that the change has come. They have to change..period. Malaysia is still a work in progress. We must have the resolve to get there and I believe we will get there, eventually. The new faces in Parliament will have to force that change and not fall into the race game themselves. As unpopular it may be, it must be done. I just hope that we will not be let down by them as how the PM was let down by the group of young Oxbridge/Ivy League educated advisors led by his son-in-law.
Whilst what happened in the US is amazing, lets not forget, there were a large number of racist bigots that were drawn out of the woodwork who openly had issues with Obama’s colour, upbringing and even his name. Obama’s win whilst historic, cannot be viewed in a rose tinted way as conclusive testament that the US have broken away from the shackles of race. There were other factors that helped him along, among them were the economic slump, the hugely unpopular Dubya and perhaps McCain’s poor choice for a running mate. I feel that without these other factors that worked in his favour, the race to the White House would have been a whole lot closer. Obama really has his work cut out for him.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:28
Farish Noor wrote:
>It is true that decades of positive image building of American blacks in the media helped to pave the way for Obama’s rise,]]
In fact, a lot depends on the mass media and their corporate masters. One of the greatest speakers in modern American politics has to be the Reverend Jesse Jackson, but the media’s opposition was nothing if not disgraceful. Instead of giving valid reasons as to why he should not be president, network news simply said repeatedly that he was “not electable.” They even concocted a poll (could be the Indiana primary) that purportedly showed him losing by a big margin, and then, like a blushing whore, glossed over their predictions when Jackson won handily. It took several weeks, near the end of the nomination campaign, before a radio talkshow host - Jim Bohanan, I think - suggested that “Jackson was too leftist.”
That, in fact, was the real reason for the media’s onslaught against Jackson. And of course they could make headway only by appealing to the worst instints of the white populace. If the media didn’t manipulate voter sentiments, Jackson would’ve been the first black to occupy the oval office.
Biased media coverage is legendary in American politics, as in all other spheres of life. And the tactics often seemed laughably simple. To support the Reaganesque military-industrial complex, all the media had to do was to call Mondale “a wimp,” whatever that meant. To sway voters towards Bush Senior, network anchors called him “presidential.” By contrast, Dukakis’ whirlwind tour of several states was described as “scurrying” - giving the image of confused rats or a headless chicken running around without a sense of direction. I can cite a lot of questionable “journalism” by the so-called Fourth Estate, spanning my decades in the United States, but there’s just not enough space here (and I’m a bit tired of the whole charade).
> the bottom line is that this was a historical moment that was realised in the immediate present.]]
Reminds me of Trotsky’s comparison of the Russian Revolution with the delivering of a baby during the sixth month rather than the normal ninth month. You’re right: our actions might be framed by the environment we find ourselves in, but human agency cannot be dismissed. This freedom within a deterministic setup was recognized even by Marx, and indeed touched on centuries earlier by Boethius (”Consolation of Philosophy”).
LChuah
November 11th, 2008 at 15:38
Our apologies, as the two comments above were meant for the posting ‘Change does not take 400 years to happen’ (!!)
On another note, for those of you who are in singapore or residing in singapore, on 18 November there will be a seminar/discussion on contemporary Malaysian art at the NUS Museum, profiling the works of Malaysian artists like Wong Hoy Cheong. Hoy Cheong and I will be speaking at a panel at 4.00 pm on the subject of politics and contemporary Malaysian art, for those interested…