I’ve not been following the MCA elections at all; a few days ago I felt disturbed by this, but now I wonder why I am not. Have I become ‘cynical’?
It made me think about the articles written at Singaporeangle and Singapore Ink on apathy and political engagement. I don’t suppose anyone would care to provide a precise and definitive conclusion on the meaning of the word “politics”, since everybody has some idea of what it consists in (sic).
But what about apathy? What does it consist in (sic)? Dictionary.com gives this definition:
ap·a·thy
n.
1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
2. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.
It’s significant that the definition includes the words “importance or appeal”. With respect to political apathy, is there something substantively important that the polity should regard as such, and if so, how so?
Huicheh’s response is politics for the sake of civil liberties is important, but that in and of itself, politics has no substantive value except that of achieving or safeguarding one’s own interests. That, however, does not tackle the question of apathy directly. “Wow’s” interpretation of the situation is rather apathy of one’s pursuit of happiness. I’m not about to argue for politics having value by itself, that would be too involved a task; politics has always been for me a systematized approach to governing competing interests amongst individuals.
If politics is a systematized approach to governing competing interests amongst individuals, then it follows that the success or failure of a political system is dependent upon the real effect of managing individual interests, and this will be measured by the general acceptance or rejection of the political system in place. In this case, we are nominally living in a democracy. Are we happy living with it? As far as I know, there are no indications that we aren’t happy with it; there are indications, however, that some are not happy with the government in place and its policies.
What about apathy? Whether consciously or not, I believe all Malaysians are striving, individually, to reach goals that can either guarantee them lasting happiness, or are striving for goals that, by such striving, makes them happy. I am saying, therefore, that pursuing happiness is of “general importance”, or rather, “a priority” among people, nominally speaking.
However, if you have a situation where governance really does not impede a person’s pursuit of his own happiness, then that person has no reason to complain or be involved in politics: why fix something that isn’t broken? Isn’t this a kind of apathy? Is this, however, a virtuous kind of apathy? What interest does a person have in being involved with politics if he is satisfied by the conduct of the current government?
However, what if said government really does impede a person’s pursuit of happiness? I’d imagine that frustration arises. The natural recourse for such a person would be to declare with his vote, in a democracy, his dissatisfaction in the hope of redressing his frustration with the current milieu. But what if such a recourse bears no fruit? Would it lead to a kind of helplessness engendering apathy? And would that apathy be “understandable”?
In the former consideration, if the government really is taking care of a person’s interest, why should such a person be involved in politics at all? The only answer I can come up with is that suc a government may not always be in place.
For the latter example, what I don’t get is this: the kind of political apathy the second situation engenders is probably one born of skepticism with respect to the individual (or collective) ability to change things. This I don’t quite understand because, theoretically speaking, we’re still living in a democracy; that fact hasn’t changed. If we are living in a democracy, it then means that successive governments have been put in place by the people. To then turn around and state that one is apathetic with respect to politics is disingenuous, unless some other substantive reason can be found.
I suppose the antecedents to such an apathy can be listed as such: communal politics and policies, the pseudo-feudalistic politicians we have, etc. etc. But are any of these reasons substantive? Because the bald fact remains that we are living in a democracy, and despite the heavy-handed practices of the incumbent, it remains a fact that we can and should vote our opinions on the government’s failures. Not doing so, or not taking an interest in politics virtually guarantees our own helplessness.
Just like the kind of helplessness some would feel when they know that change can only come by rocking the boat, and rocking the boat means the potential for loss and worse, retaliation.
