A good year for democracy, thus far

However damaging 2008 will turn out to be for capitalism, it will be remembered as a good year for democracy. There have for me been three exciting elections. The first was the Malaysian general election of 8 March, the second was the London mayoral election of 1 May, and the third was the US presidential election of 4 November. All were underpinned by a desire for change, all set new records in their own way and all reinforced my belief in the righteousness of the ballot box.

Although there are probably more Malaysians living in London (where they are granted voting rights by virtue of being citizens of a Commonwealth country) than the entire USA, the London mayoral election was not a hot topic here, so a brief recap: Conservative MP Boris Johnson defeated the Labour incumbent Ken Livingstone, marking the first time that the mayor came from a party different than the one in power nationally. London’s mayor is in some ways more powerful than Mentris Besar are in Malaysia, wielding influence over housing, transport and health provision, so this was an enormously important election for the ten million residents in terms of policy shift. But the results also reflected a national mood against the Labour Party which had been in power since 1997 and a significant boost for David Cameron’s refreshed Conservative Party. Although Boris himself is descended from an Ottoman minister (and thus like Barack Obama possesses a Muslim heritage) the issue of class always features in British politics. Despite the usual stereotyping by the Left of Eton-educated Conservatives as snobby elitists with no concern for the poor and marginalised, Londoners voted for change notwithstanding the eccentric candidate’s privileged background. Margaret Thatcher once said: “class is a Communist concept. It groups people as bundles, and sets them against one another.”

It has become easier to say the same thing about race in Malaysia since 8 March. Although it is now generally agreed that the election did not signal the end of race-based politics, it could nonetheless prove to be the beginning of its end. The rhetoric from politicians of both sides now accepts that it is in principle a good thing to be post-race. The Opposition Leader’s economic agenda explicitly moves away from designating welfare according to ethnic classifications. The tagline of the Deputy Prime Minister’s new website is “Each of us is Malaysian… We are one Malaysia”. Tun Mahathir recently noted that racial issues were being discussed more now than before 8 March as a way of proving that race-based politics was far from dead. But the point is that it is being discussed. Of course there will be those who will want to defend the current system for all eternity, but there is now more freedom than before to disagree. Progress is being made.

On 5 November I facebooked some of my friends in Washington DC – I left a year ago when they were still deciding between Hillary and Barack for the Democratic nomination – and asked them whether America is now post-race, and behind the hyperbole there was some caution that it may not be. “The prospect of McCain and Palin was so unpalatable that it might have cajoled normally racially conscious whites to vote for a merely half-black candidate”, one friend, originally a Hillary supporter, mused. My Republican friend on the libertarian wing of the party exasperatedly pointed out that “the celebration over a black president is so rapturous that people have become blind to how disastrous his policies will be. You can’t simultaneously say race is irrelevant and then harp on about how great it is that he is black.”

I do share some of my Republican friend’s concerns. Some of Obama’s policies – of particular relevance to us, his apparent trade protectionism – are reasons to be cautious. But I must disagree with my friend because the US president, unlike any other elected position in the world, has such an impact not only in terms of policy but symbolically. It has sparked off even more debate here about whether a non-Malay Prime Minister could one day be possible here, and no doubt throughout the world where there are racial barriers. It is immaterial that there may have been past US Presidents with African ancestors, just as it is immaterial that our past Prime Ministers may have had Siamese, Turkish or Indian blood – the point is that public consciousness has accepted that they are the race they are purported to be. But above all the reason to celebrate Obama’s victory is that it has tapped such a reservoir of goodwill to America, that whatever sensible policies may emanate from the White House will have a greater chance of success.

An edited version of this article was published in The Sun, 14 November 2008