Why
not rebut the narrative made by Liu and demonstrate why this clause is
needed, a clause mind you, that Liu contends gives more power to the CEC
when it comes to disciplining party members.
Loke has made noises
in the press leading up to this fiasco in which he claimed that such a
clause was needed to ensure party effectiveness - “For example, if there
is a motion that we need to oppose but some of our MPs support it, then
the party’s effectiveness would be undermined.”
Sounds great but
what happens if the motion proposed is not beneficial to the public and
MPs who opposed such a motion were doing so because it is the right
thing to do or what the public who voted for them expects even if it
goes against the party line?
Furthermore, how would it look if the
CEC decides to strip someone of their membership because he or she did
not toe the party line?
I figure if the party line was something
the public supported, this would not be such an issue but what if it was
something that was politically advantageous or expedient and the member
in question was not going to play ball?
Mind you, I am not saying that party discipline is not important but
there is a fine line between party discipline and totalitarian impulses.
There
are many ways to marginalise party members who are disruptive but the
reality is that the only voices which truly determine if a party member
has committed something so egregious that he or she needs to be kicked
out of the party, are voters through the ballot box.
Dissent matters
Some
laws, clauses, bylaws or whatever define what a party is. Forget about
the personalities involved. If you do not like Liu, Loke or even the
DAP, put all that aside for a moment and just think about this clause.
What
this clause does is define the kind of elected representative the party
offers to voters. What this clause defines is the kind of elected
representative you will get if you vote for the candidate.
What
this clause defines is how the candidate will be able to carry out his
or her functions and how much influence party politics has on his or her
agenda.
It also defines what kind of issues the candidate speaks
up on even if unpopular and how much his or her voice is muted by the
party. In other words, this clause defines if a candidate puts country,
ideology or principle above party.
We know how certain political
operatives seem to love gag orders. Well, this is essentially a gag
order. A gag order that would define how a supposedly democratic party
handles dissent.
It also brings up an interesting point. Suppose
you have political operatives who are against the party line when it
comes to specific issues. Ordinarily, their dissent could lead to
practical actions such as voting against or abstaining, besides talking
to the press.
With this new clause, all these changes. There could
be no dissent or rather a situation where instead of reasoned
discourse, the “dissident” could end up provoking the CEC to strip him
or her of their membership to prove a point, which ends up as political
theatre.
Liu wrote, “In a true democracy, we do not punish or
victimise members for holding differing views and opinions. There must
be room for dissenting views.”
Which
begs the question, what kind of democracy does the DAP want to
propagate? A democracy defined by how people toe the party line or a
democracy where people can dissent without being ejected from the fold?
The former is practised by fascist and communist parties the world over
and is not really democracy at all.
If anything, this country
needs more democracy and if the DAP cannot handle dissent from within,
how exactly are they going to campaign for more democratic norms and
principles?
How can the DAP be an effective advocate for democracy when it amends its constitution to silence dissent?
Sorry
Liu, God cannot save the DAP. The fate of the party is in the hands of
its members and how they react to this determines what kind of democracy
they want this country to be.
We get the democracy we deserve. This remains the state of play.
