A Constitutional monarchy, democracy and a free market

Opinion

Malaysia has gone its own way in defining its idea of democracy and a free market. Its democracy is not fully representative and its free market is interfered with by its affirmative action policies. Nevertheless, when compared to many other developing countries in the world, we are relatively more democratic and our markets are freer.

In fact, democracy and a free market are an antithesis in that the former calls for equity, as in one person one vote, and the latter calls for the strong to thrive and the weak to perish. Many think of democracy as the only legitimate control over the unbridled animal spirits of the free market. Truth be told, pure democracy is probably more consistent with communism. After all, if one has one vote, shouldn’t one also have one share of the nation’s massive pie?

Yet history has shown us that when it comes to the allocation of resources, communism or even theocracies fail miserably. It seems that we cannot make everyone equal or the same. The best that we can strive for is equality of opportunity for our citizens. Our citizens should all have the chance to succeed through knowledge, hard work, intelligence and sometimes pure luck.

Arguably, free markets actually work better under an autocratic system. Just look at China today. Its development under a one party state with the introduction of the free market only a few decades ago, has been nothing short of miraculous.

A free market is also not without its flaws but it is the best that mankind has been able to come up with so far, and in most of the Western world, controls are put on it by democracy via anti-monopoly legislation and the like.

In Malaysia’s case, perhaps unwittingly, we need not worry too much about either being a theocracy or communist. Our Constitutional monarchs actually protect us from such an outcome. Our Sultans are, after all, heads of Islam in their respective states and I don’t see them ceding that power to anyone. A godless communism would also not be allowed by the rulers as it is against the Constitution and against the interests of the vast majority of Malaysians, regardless of race or religion.

In the hierarchy of Malaysian life, the Rulers are above us all but that is as it should be, for it is their majesties that have the most to lose should anything untoward happen in the country. They can’t exactly pack up their bags and migrate without losing their dominion. As a result of history, the Rulers are actually the guardians of our democracy and their role is explicitly clear in our Constitution.

In the rough and tumble of Malaysian politics, it is their majesties who can and may be called on to be the final arbiters should the game become too dirty or too dangerous. It is actually the Rulers who have the greatest incentive to ensure the future prosperity and well-being of the nation. Most politicians and civil servants come and go but it is the Rulers and their sons who will be with us for life.

At the same time, if we look at the major political actors both in government and the opposition, we can see that family branding certainly plays a part in moving up the political ladder. In a way this too ensures that things don’t get out of hand as no one wants to hurt their family brand in Malaysia. These top politicians too can’t simply pack their bags and leave without losing their great political influence within the country.

For all the fear that some have tried to inject into the political equation, it is not in the interest of those who matter for the nation to destabilise. Those Malaysians who have left are actually freer than the masters left behind. They can quit their jobs, sell their property and move to another country without losing much. I don’t see the masters being able to do that.

Datuk Jema Khan is a former Sabah Umno Youth leader. He is now a businessman pushing the Agenda Liberal Melayu inFacebook .