MDP and Parliament: Troubling Times

In recent times, as I browse the various facebook groups and websites of the candidates for parliament, I wonder at some of the things that I read about. Mostly, I am amazed by the number of people who defend a state of affairs in which MDP would control a majority in parliament.

Here's my response to those who support an MDP led parliament.

There are some of you that claim MDP is "the most democratic political party in South and South East Asia. There are some of you that claim that only with a majority in parliament would MDP be able to fulfill their 5 major promises made in their manifesto. And then there are those amongst you who claim that an opposition led parliament would both disrupt and halt the workings of the government by stopping bills on the floor. But at the end of the day, most of you show a blind faith in MDP that is just quite alarming.

An MP is elected by the people to represent the people as a whole within a smaller congregation. As such, whether an MP may be from MDP or DRP or an independent candidate, their first and foremost responsibility and sacred duty is to the people that elected them.

So by that standard, not a single MP nor a bloc of MPs may rightfully halt important bills such as the budget bill; provided that the bill will benefit the people, all the people, in the long term and not a handful of people; provided that their actions and subsequently the bills that they pass are not detrimental to the progress and well being of this nation and its peoples.

So for those of you who are naive enough to believe that an opposition led parliament would knowingly halt bills and pass laws that are detrimental to the people that they represent in order to satiate their greed; it just goes to show both the lack of faith we have in our own system and in ourselves, for we are those onto whom the duty of electing responsible representatives falls upon.

As for those of you who insist that MDP "requires" a majority in parliament to fulfill their promissory note to the people, please take a moment and think about this for a second. This country is not one in which a parliamentary system is in place, and as such the executive, legislative and the judicial bodies have been separated in order for democracy and fair government to prevail.

However, in the event that we the people award the same political party that represents the executive a majority in the legislative body (ie. the parliament) then we award to the same party the power to control the judiciary as well. Which in case you may not know, leads to the opening of the door towards despotism and tyranny without check; a power held by a select few who would effectively have the power, should they feel like doing so, to rape this country without consequences, bar a revolution.

I do not say that this may happen; I only point out that the opportunity for this may arise. And leaving that aside, the very fact that such a "democratic" party as MDP is purported to be, should "require" a majority in parliament gives rise to fears within the hearts of the people who love democracy. For if MDP is "the most democratic party in South and South East Asia" as you claim, then why need arise the requirement for a majority in parliament; why the need for such an undemocratic situation for the country as a whole?

For if MDP fulfills its promissory note to the people in terms of their manifesto through the executive, then the only need for a parliament would be to enact laws for the benefit of the people and to keep the government accountable such that law and order may prevail, leading (insha allah) to prosperity and well being. This my friends, is what is called "Checks and Balances" within a democratic system of government.

As for those of you who would respond to me with the oft said notion of how the MDP National Council will keep both the MPs and the Executive (ie. the President and his Cabinet) accountable, as they have done so in the past and so forth and so on; my question to you is this. What then is the need for a parliament in the event that a body exists more powerful than both the legislative and the executive bodies of government, than even the judiciary or even the fair peoples of this nation as a whole?

Where then is democracy where such a body may exist? For would we not then have willingly welcomed a tyranny of sorts, be that a "benevolent dictatorship", with one political party in exchange for the illusion of democracy and the rights that are ours by default anyway? Why then would there be a reason for a multi party state of politics, if the same MDP that supposedly fought for such a state in the past now looks to dominate the political arena and revert this nation to a de facto one party state after they have succeeded in ascending the throne?

Does some of this sound familiar? It should, as I describe in part a style of government and politics that have been prevalent in our society for generations. For those who do not remember the past, or would willingly forget so easily, are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. We are at the cusp of a new era, an era of fair minded government and democracy. Let us not fall back into complacency now and work to break the cycle. Let us vote for those candidates that represent the hope of this brighter tomorrow, those candidates that we can trust to represent us first and foremost before the representation of party politics and agendas.

By the people, for the people.

It is troubling times indeed.