The dull roar of democracy

IN a democracy, we are told that peaceful demonstrations to express feelings of neglect or injustice are supposed to be good for society.

The theory is that even though people may elect their representatives, and even if the elections are done in a fair manner, there may still be matters that the ­people need to raise in a more pronounced manner, or perhaps people become dissatisfied with their representatives’ performance.

However, I feel that in this ­digital era, demonstrations are no longer about what was intended by the forefathers of democracy.

They just seem to be about the noise and the numbers – the maximum possible to get noticed.

Still, as long as the demonstrations are peaceful, I have no issue with that.

But recently in Malaysia, I have seen a few demonstrations that give me pause and concern that their purpose is either sinister or, at the least, ignorant.

For the record, I have never attended or participated in any demonstrations in this country or in the United States or Scotland where I studied. Never.

However, I have seen incredible demonstrations in my lifetime, like the Reformasi street demos and also the Bersih rallies in the late 1990s and early 2000s respeectively.

This year, I saw a big demonstration by the Opposition coalition called “Turun Anwar” (roughly “Resign, Anwar”) and several smaller ones led by university students protesting issues of corruption and school safety.

Now, during the Reformasi days, the Internet was in its infancy and the smartphone was nowhere yet.

There was no social media to viralise anything. All we had were mobile phones that could send text messages.

The Reformasi demonstrations at first were against the manner in which the government had handled the arrest and later the assault in prison of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim before they grew into a call for democratic reforms.

Apart from protesting the 1MDB financial scandal, the Bersih rallies were about electoral reform and good governance.

Both movements had definite and listed demands.

I have to say I do have some issues with demonstrations that are legitimised by the practice of democracy.

When a demonstration is organised by mobilising thousands of people who are paid with incentives and prepped to shout ready-made slogans given to them, it feels just plain wrong to me.

Yes, we have a right to assemble but when the purpose is to create a narrative that people are very unhappy or in great distress while in actuality the people “­protesting” seem to be happily having a day out, shouting slogans they don’t really seem to understand, that, to me, raises many concerns.

I believe that a genuine demonstration is one that draws ­hundreds of people, coming out of their homes and gathering at their own expense, to voice a loud protest they feel strongly about.

It is not a nice day out for mums and dads, and grandpas and ­grannies, bussed into the city in air-conditioned coaches, with children along for a family ­outing.

I call this a demonstration of fake injustice, using the excuse of the freedom of assembly and ­freedom of speech to make a political move.

There’s another kind of demonstration we’re seeing more of in this digital age where misinformation moves faster than any wildfire.

It is not a paid one and is indeed born of genuine feeling, but it suffers from populist ignorance.

When such demonstrators shout about corruption or ­injustice, they fail miserably in two things.

Firstly, they usually call out an individual who they have read about on that font of all wisdom, social media, who is supposed to be corrupt even though there has been no case or evidence presented, and certainly no guilty ­verdict.

And secondly, when they protest populist issues, it is very ­obvious they haven’t done any real research and are going only by the strength of social media indictments and accusations.

With no evidence backing them, it makes the whole affair weak and unimpressive.

And then they burn the effigy of an important figure, like say, the prime minister, while shouting for him to change things.

There was also a demonstration that presented a memorandum to a sitting minister while the group shouted “Turun menteri”.

What is the logic here? Why would you burn effigies and call for resignations even as you call for those same people you’re insulting to take action? Are you not burning your bridges before you can even cross them?

These two types of demonstrations are allowed and tolerated in a democracy but they show cynicism and ignorance on the part of the demonstrators.

One is a paid and choreographed political exercise while the other is an organic expression of anger but with no understanding of the issues involved and no solutions offered. But both are legal and “justified” in a democracy.

So the next time you see a demonstration, ask yourself: is it a picnic for the family or is it a chance to be famous on YouTube by making some noise and burning stuff?

If the answer to both questions is “No”, than perhaps you have a real act of democratic freedom taking place.

Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is Professor of Architecture at the Tan Sri Omar Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Studies at UCSI University. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.