I feel a bit less pressured now since the deadline for my research paper has been pushed for another four days. Good job, Sinae, for lobbying on our behalf. The paper's presentation will just be among grad students (there are nine of us in the class) with pizzas, sodas and alcohols (for those who drink); it'll be very informal and low-key for sure in a room overlooking the majestic Lake Mendota. It'll be fun. Anyway, this new deadline allows me some free time to stray from my paper and do a bit of fun writing on the side--well, fun for me at least.
The social unrests in Nepal right now got me thinking about the role of monarchy in a democratic system of governance. The prevailing wisdom of the day says that we don't need them anymore; they serve no purpose whatsoever in the democratic scheme of things. And I agree with this truism 101 percent. As an unelected institution whose authority is derived from hereditary claim, it certainly does not bode well with the principle of government for, by, and of the people. For me, the monarchy is simply a relic of the past, which has long outlived its societal function. Imagine if T-Rex still roam the earth to this very day and how unfitting and awkward these dinosaurs would be in our highly evolved ecological system: the species who were supposedly eliminated by the virtue of evolution suddenly find themselves in an environment that is inhospitable and a habitat uninhabitable. To put it plainly, it's just weird to see dinosaurs in your backyard jungle--and that's exactly how I feel about monarchy.
If it's up to me, that is, if I have the opportunity and the political power to do so, I'd abolish ALL forms of monarchy, period. I don't care if they are Louis XVI l'etat, c'est moi types like the Sultan of Brunei or titulary like Queen Elizabeth II or the Malaysian kings. Boot them off their golden pedestal into the multitudes of unwashed masses on the ground. Nobody's THAT special!
This brings up another issue: the royal institution in Malaysia and its relevance to the Malaysian democratic life, or the semblance of democracy we have right now. My short answer: IRRELEVANT. My long answer: the royal institution in Malaysia is ostensibly tied up with the idea of Ketuanan Melayu, which means that in order to justify the special privilege of Malays in the country, the royal institution has to be preserved at all costs. Sounds ridiculous? Yes, it is absurd. It serves as the Malays' link to our purported historical dominance of the country, the proof that we were here first and we have this cultural artifact--the royal institution--as an evidence. To all the people who wonder why haven't we abolish monarchy in Malaysia, well, here's why. One can also argue that we followed the British system to a tee when we were preparing for independence and that was why we adopted the constitutional monarchy system. But remember, who was the first PM of the newly independent Malaya? Yes, a member of the royal family. It'd be crazy for him to de-royalize himself and abolish his own privileged livelihood, right?
I realize it's so much harder to get rid of the monarchy if the institution is bound up with human primordialism, like religion (Thailand) or race (Malaysia). The two are perceived as one of the same. So, what to do? Well, I don't have the answer to this question. At least nothing short of a bloody revolution, that's for sure. But it's doubly hard in Malaysia because we have two royal institutions: The symbolic one that takes turn every 5 years to be the King of Malaysia; and the UMNO ruling elite who reign like the kings of the past, dispensing patronage, only without the veritable royal heritage. If somebody can offer me a solution to get rid of these two feudal institutions--not the kind of Solution Hitler used during WWII, though it's tempting--I'm all ears.
p/s: Also, look at the smug face of the Nepalese king in the pic above and don't tell me you don't want to overthrow the guy and kick his bitchy ass while you're at it. His name is Gyanendra, by the way, if anyone's interested in bitch-slapping him. One observational note: The Nepalese riot police are dressed up like Kendo practitioners. Maybe Huda and Deya would like to join them if they're recruiting. I'm sure they could use more fresh recruits as the protests swell up.
2 comments:
Monarchy isn't all that bad you know... I live in Belgium, where nobody is really too excited about our king, but we just made sure he has no real power left, so he can't do anyting wrong, and it costs a lot less that chosing a new president every few years (and possibly still ending up with an idiot on top, who does have power). So the king here is just a spokesman, and we all live happely ever after... I won't say that it's perfect, but it's just not too bad.
And kendo is cool by the way :-)
I agree with you that monarchy is not all that bad in terms of real power. It's worse and frightening if they actually possess real power, like the King of Nepal, who can actually dismiss the PM and suspend the Parliament.
My aversion to the monarchy is purely based on principle. I detest all forms of elitism, especially ones that are proven to be outdated and irrelevant, like the monarchy for instance. Just because they don't have real power it doesn't mean that they don't FEEL and THINK they are MORE superior than common people, their "subjects," so to speak.
If people revere the royal institution so much for the sake of traditions and cultural integrity, then my suggestion would be to display them as historical artifacts. Make wax statues of them and put them up in the national museum or something. Stop deifying them in songs, poems, novels, etc. In the Malaysian case, revise the national anthem and some of the states' anthems the lines that refer to the kings. Revise the Rukun Negara (state principles): get rid or edit the line that says "Kesetiaan kepada Raja dan Negara."
This is the 21st century, for God's sake. We don't need no damn Kings!!! I certainly don't...
Post a Comment