“I am not acting on any pressure. I am doing this because Umno under Abdullah has forgotten its roots, its struggle for the party – for the Malays and for the nation.”
(Mahathir Mohammad, May 27, 2008)

Racial politics, racial discrimination, exclusively race based policies, and UMNO have one thing in common. They are racist in nature, and there are no two ways around that.

But when racists attempt to outrace one another, the subtle nuances within racism become more pronounced. Yet it’s in its more nuanced form that racism is truly more dangerous to society.

Before Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his predecessor Mahathir Mohammad lost mutual favours, racism was quite simply defined as them and UMNO for the Malays against the non-Malays. It looked more or less monolithic – the fight for Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) – and too strong to be challenged from the outside.

The idea was always that throughout history, only crises in UMNO would lead to gains for their (relatively more) multiracial opposition. Nothing else would challenge the UMNO hegemony other than those of the cracks created by diverging interests within the dominant party.

It’s during times of hegemonic crises like those we’ve seen in UMNO (in 1969, 1987, 1998) and the one of enormous proportions we see now that opportunities for change arise. The dialectical process of social change cannot be more obvious in Malaysia today where we see contradictions within the dominant racial ideology leading to a struggle against its antithesis – genuine multiracialism. What synthesis will be born from this clash of ideas? We shall see.

Interestingly to be considered, and perhaps of equal significance at this moment, are the micro dialectics going on within UMNO thesis. Of course, some would claim this is the key dialectical development in Malaysia today. But to situate the UMNO crisis as the major contradiction of Malaysian society today will be to go against the believe in true social change where subordinate classes (though racial in this case) successfully struggle and create a (racially) classless society.

Nevertheless, let’s zoom in on the micro crisis in UMNO. It’s Mahathir the predecessor versus Abdullah the successor. Having endured a falling out for two years now since the infamous crooked bridge issue (when Mahathir accused Abdullah of selling out the country to neighbours Singapore), the gap between these two old men cannot be wider today after Abdullah’s disastrous showing in the recent general elections. Abdullah is of the view it is because of elements of sabotage that his Barisan Nasional ruling coalition failed to retain two-thirds in Parliament and lost a further four states to the Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance). Whereas for Mahathir, Abdullah has been simply inept at the job – accusing him of leaving key decisions to purportedly young advisers, in particular his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin, who have no intention on upholding Mahathir’s interest in affairs. Before the elections, Mahathir even went as far as to ask Malaysians to “vote not only with party loyalty” stressing the need for a strong opposition and for “good people setting up a good government”. (For context, see Malaysiakini here)

On the back of the Lingam tape royal commission report implicating Mahathir in judicial fixing – with Abdullah holding advantage in terms of deciding whether anyone gets prosecuted for the case – Mahathir has quit UMNO, requested MPs to follow suit, and put the condition that unless Abdullah resigns, none shall return. Not known to be a pacifier, Mahathir has quickly gone on the offensive, burning his bridges before he could persuade any UMNO lawmakers to join him. Abdullah has quickly solidified ranks within the party, repositioning Mahathir as external to UMNO by claiming members who love the the party will not leave. Mahathir’s son Mukhriz, who is a newly elected UMNO MP, called upon Abdullah to resign but stopped short of quitting from the party himself.

With Mahathir now an UMNO outcast (not one elected legislator has responded to his clarion call), there’s only one logical move for him to take, and which is the one he’s taken. To cast doubt on Abdullah’s leadership, Mahathir is now taking racism one step towards the extreme right. To win over popular support, Mahathir is doing all he can to incite racial emotions by claiming legitimacy to be the de facto champion of (exclusive) Malay rights. His argument against the Abdullah led government is one about issues surrounding eroding Malay supremacy. His branding of other races as becoming “extremist” with their demands because of a weak government has surely antagonised perhaps even the most sympathetic of those amongst minority communities. Mahathir now becomes a mutual foe of those who voted on March 8 against racial and corrupt politics. He now effectively represents both corruption and racism.

Abdullah, on the other hand, has been relatively silent (as usual) on the controversy, calling for calm and support for his governance, promising reform (again), and probably promising more carrots in exchange for loyalty. He still holds the ‘correct, correct, correct’ card that could easily ‘pom, pom, pom’ Mahathir into oblivion. With Tengku Adnan, Vincent Tan, and gang probably having bad dreams of VK Lingam every night now, Abdullah knows time is on his side as far as Mahathir’s implication in this case is concerned. He just needs to wait for the right moment, the moment when Mahathir truly loses control, when he unleashes the Attorney General.

Abdullah’s handling of Mahathir is thus smarter than Mahathir’s of his deputy when he was still in power in 1998. Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking, arrest, and conviction under trumped up charges back then sparked protests that brought together thousands in numbers calling for reformation. Yesterday, Mahathir post-UMNO was greeted by a meager crowd of 300 at the airport where he arrived from an overseas trip. In contrast, Abdullah’s arrival later that night was reported to have drawn around 5,000 people.

Perhaps, it is Abdullah’s perceived gentlemanliness working wonders again. His non-antagonistic approach toward Mahathir apparently isn’t making him too many new enemies. But is Abdullah any less a racist than Mahathir has shown himself to be?

Of the long list things Abdullah has not yet accomplished (apart from crooked bridges that is), he still has yet to distance himself from the racial stance Mahathir is taking. It should also be noted that in spite of all the signs (March 8 being one) Abdullah has received, he has yet to implement any genuine reform to any level of his supposed democratic rule. Abdullah is in fact retaining his legitimacy as UMNO leader, one who will continually strive for Malay supremacy, racial politics, and feudally derived popular support.

In terms of how this crisis will turn out, the Mahathir et al versus Abdullah led UMNO end-game looks destined to be one which pits Malays against Malays. Will racist ideology prevail? Or will Abdullah’s inertia actually swing Malays further away from the inanities of racism? We shall see.

Lurking around the corner beyond this UMNO crisis is a man defeated in the last one some 10 years ago. Whereas Anwar Ibrahim’s challenge of the dominant leadership back then saw Mahathir solidify his iron-fist rule of Malaysia, he today represents the brightest antithesis to UMNO’s archaic racism. Unlike the previous crises of 69, 87, and 98 when there did not exist a viable alternative to UMNO, Anwar’s Keadilan and the Pakatan Rakyat he helped bring together now offer a refreshing new outlook for Malaysians regardless of race. Non-Malays who are increasingly alienated by Mahathir’s racist struggle against Abdullah will ultimately opt for Anwar. Throw Nik Aziz into the equation anytime, Ketuanan Mahathir or Abdullah will pale against Ketuanan Rakyat.

Can genuine multiracialism, one that celebrates honest and open democracy, be facilitated in the near future? Will it be Mahathir, Abdullah, or Anwar?

Looking forward to your replies.

Humbly,
Konsyenz (A Voice Within)