Would a "conscience vote" be an apt description for Malaysia's 15th General Election?
The underlying objective of the political process is to elect a few good men (and women) to stabilise a nation's political life on the basis of civility and virtue; not evil and falsehood.
A "conscience vote", and by definition, every vote, is made by voters who listen to their conscience. If it takes place in Parliament, then it is made by members of parliament who listen to their consciences as representatives of their constituencies, instead of following some diktat from a political party.
Integrity is paramount. The culture of political parties is not known for integrity. We argue that integrity requires judgment; and independence of judgment rejects partisan edicts. Partisan edicts stifle all sense of justice, reasoning and rationality. It makes truth tasteless.
A conscience vote must bring about that scarce societal and national resource — trusting the government to do the right thing. When voters distrust and despise their representatives, democracy itself, how imperfect it may be, is imperilled.
The conditions described above are mainly echoes from the past. More than 70 years ago, an essay was published in the French monthly journal La Table ronde (No. 26, February 1950), subsequently reissued in book form in 1953 and more recently in 2008.
The spirit of Simone Weil's "On the Abolition of All Political Parties" is even more relevant today in the expression of Malaysia's political party culture.
Weil, a member of the French resistance movement under General de Gaulle in the 1930s and 1940s, was deeply dismayed by various attempts of French politicians in exile to revive the destructive practices of rivalries and factionalism in party politics.
Her essay made reference to the 1789 French Revolution and the state of crisis in the philosophy and politics of modern Europe. The gloom and destruction during World War 1 and in the inter-war years, the millions killed or tortured, had a strong impact on European thinking.
The question she asked was, who can justify the suffering of the innocent? The persona of history trembles at that query.
Political parties do not care about history, even the name of God, or heaven or hell. Over the years, Malay political culture in Malaysia has placed their gods above that of religion.
There is certainly a basic intellectual weakness in the political party process. The effectiveness of majority rule is uncertain. And, can lead to legitimising crime and power abuse.
Can one conclude on a universal consensus? Are the people's representatives truly the channel for the expression of public opinion?
Do the views expressed by voters really represent their genuine problems, or a judgment altered by party rhetoric?
Weil identifies three characteristics of political parties, since they began and since then affecting much of European life. The political party resonates "an evil that ought to be prevented".
In the late 1700s, the Jacobins provided an arena of free debate, but it eventually turned totalitarian. It was "one party in power and all others in jail". Beginning in Continental Europe, "totalitarianism was the original sin of all political parties".
That "the mere fact that they exist today is not in itself a sufficient reason for us to preserve them". Weil's three characteristics of political parties are:
A political party is a machine to generate collective passions; is an organisation designed to exert collective pressure upon the minds of all its individual members; and, its first objective and ultimate goal is its own growth, without limit. To be fair, these characteristics are also present in other domains of public life, including universities.
Weil argues that political parties are organisations publicly and officially designed for "the purpose of killing in all souls the sense of truth and justice" through the propaganda of not to enlighten, but to persuade.
However mendacious a party's manifesto seems to be, it would announce its commitment. We must not be fooled. Manifestos are not sacred, implied a post-2013 election court judgment.
We have seen how political parties have made it impossible for the laity to intervene effectively in public affairs without joining a party. Malaysia must prepare for a new political arrangement if she wants to break this impasse.
Democracy breeds totalitarian systems. It does not change man into God. This essay does not have malicious intentions against political parties.
That is not the only choice left for the future of electoral politics in Malaysia.
The writer is professor of social and intellectual history, International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation, International Islamic University Malaysia
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times