Of Negotiations, words and symbols In “Negotiating in a Multiethnic Society”, Umberto Eco posits: “The fundamental principle that governs – or ought to govern – human affairs, if we wish to avoid misunderstandings, conflicts or pointless utopias, is negotiation. The model of negotiation is an oriental bazaar: the seller asks for ten, you offer three, he says nine, you four, he goes down to eight, you go up to five, and finally you both agree on six. You feel you have won because you went up only three and he came down four, but the seller is equally satisfied because he knows the item is worth five. But, in the end, if you are interested in those goods and he is interested in selling them, you are both pleased.” Eco further said that in matters requiring interpretations, parties must be recognisant of facts in relation to the relevant matters. In his words: “…..I have always said the opposite, that our interpretations continually beat their heads against the hard core of facts, and the facts (even though often difficult to interpret) are there, solid and aggressive, to challenge untenable interpretations. We negotiate because, if everyone stuck to his own interpretations of the facts, we would go on ad infinitum. We negotiate to bring our diverging interpretation to a point of convergence, if only a partial one, that enables us to deal with a Fact – a thing that is there and is difficult to get rid of.” Malaysia is what it is now because of the complete lack of this very element, an element which to Eco, is or ought to be “a fundamental principle that governs human affairs.” And I must state that politicians, leaders, supporters, followers, minions and their cats from both side of the divide have unfortunately developed an inexplicable comatose reaction to this very concept. It is as if Malaysia – and by extension, our whole political and societal landscape as well as their penumbrous region – centres only around us and is all about us, us and nobody else but us. Either you are with us or you are with them. And if you are with us, you are right. Otherwise, you are wrong. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville pondered: “a majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach?" If we reduced any democracy to its bare bone, indeed, it only consists of two parties, the majority and minority. The majority, due to its numerical superiority – and thus, presumed to be a better choice to administer the State – is supposed to govern the State. And govern the State they should do. Not rule over the minority. It is then an incontrovertible FACT that in such state of political landscape, there are primarily TWO interests, namely, the majority and minority interests. These interests my at certain points be similar or even identical with each other, such as the need to enjoy universal human rights and such. But in matters where they do diverge, a democracy does not entail the majority riding rough shod over the minority. Rather, a successful and meaningful democracy is measured by the ability, willingness and capacity of the majority to make a fair and just administrative and governing decision in the best interest of the State as a whole. This requires negotiation. The lack of negotiation, when caused by the ruling party would turn any so-called democracy into a state of “benevolent authoritarian.” For this, we do not need to look far. Just remember the Mahathir era. On the other hand, a refusal to negotiate, when caused by the opposition who chooses to be the opposite all the time, would turn a democracy into a donkey, the ever abused and misused poor creature with no possibility of progress or even redemption. The lack of negotiation is compounded by the selective usages of certain words as symbols. Words are important as a communication tool. But words can also be used as symbols. Barrack Obama used the word “change” as a symbol that the USA needed a change and who else could bring the change but him. The Pakatan in GE13 tried using “ubah” as a symbol. It worked to a certain extend but it was not sufficient to unseat the Barisan Nasional. Post GE13, the words are “electoral fraud” and “gerrymandering.” On the other side of the political fence, the word is “sedition.” There is completely no problem with that provided that those words are clearly defined and substantiated with facts. And when I say facts, I mean facts which are sufficient to support the actual meaning of the words. What we have now is this. Every imaginable act which could be thrown in to discredit the result of the general election is “electoral fraud.” People looking like Bangladeshis voting. Videos of buses with foreign looking people. Indelible ink which is not indelible. (By the way, the people who are responsible for this debacle and the subsequent mishandling of the issue should be sacked!). Police reports alleging vote buying. Police reports alleging ballot paper buying. All those are carefully packaged in a box and marked “electoral fraud.” Even police reports containing allegations are “exposed” in press conferences as “evidence” of “electoral fraud.” Meanwhile, “sedition” has almost become trendy. People are arrested and brought to Court for remand orders when the actual statement with “seditious tendency” could not even be ascertained! The problem with words as symbols is this. They can get stuck in your mind for a long long time. Mee Maggie cepat dimask sedap dimakan. That is a prime example. Minum Milo, sihat dan kuat. Another prime example. Nike, just do it. Air Asia, now everybody can fly. Proton Preve, buy it and go to auto heaven. Okay, I made the last one. But you get the idea. When these words are stuck in one’s mind as a certain implanted symbols, the willingness and ability to negotiate is reduced and later, in time, disappear. So, this is where we are 4 weeks and 4 days after GE13. We have positions which are non-negotiable. We have parties with seemingly diverging and opposing interests which are hell bent on achieving their respective interests and who are definitely not willing to negotiate. And nobody is thinking about our country.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:57:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015