Toxic competition in civil society will not inspire public confidence
Comfort, in these trying times, is in short supply. Only the most lucky and immensely privileged will find themselves unaffected, perhaps even benefited, from the incidents of this year and last.
Most people would have experienced some, most, or all of the following just from trying to carry on with their normal lives: sickness, affected incomes, job losses, business challenges and closure, hunger, abuse, disenfranchisement, anxiety, depression, aimlessness...
We have also passed the point where all of us have experienced loss; friends and family members who have become casualties of the pandemic. Their absences leave gaping wounds that we cannot look away from, and grief that we have no choice but to deal with in pseudo-isolation.
We owe it to the fallen to press on and find our way out of this situation as best we can. To realise that we have abilities beyond what we have been allowed to exercise, that grow in magnitudes when pooled together.
Previously, I had written about the importance of movements over personalities as forces for progress. Since the article’s publication, we have seen the emergence of a number of movements that have worked towards solving our most pressing problems. Two examples stand out: Bendera Putih and Bendera Hitam (or #Lawan, as named by its coordinators).
Neither of these movements is a formal, registered movement with recognisable, charismatic leaders that drive them. To some, this means that they have already struck out since they have no real legal existence or a registered address that signals their importance. I would argue the opposite. While a registered legal entity with clear office-bearers is important and can function as a means for accountability, it has never been the only way that organisations are formed.
Perhaps conversations among the similar-minded had sparked certain ideas which motivated them to explore further. People then willingly gave attention, time and resources to support these ideas, which eventually grew to a point where it can be considered an organisation due to the number of people and work involved. Red-tape should help to facilitate and regulate, not impede the formation of new organisations, especially when they are meant to respond to issues that are currently occurring.
It is important to state that the two examples mentioned earlier are not merely hashtagged social media campaigns or TikTok challenges, but involved hours of work to facilitate and deliver, and a not-insignificant amount of resources. Corporations and large organisations may have opted in to show their support (specifically for Bendera Putih initiatives), but they could never lay claim to the ownership of the campaign that was as much driven by non-profit organisations, local communities and concerned individuals that self-organised to deliver assistance.
Similarly, the #Lawan campaign was spearheaded by a secretariat comprised of youth activist groups, the Sekretariat Solidariti Rakyat, but parallel initiatives such as Puisi Darurat and Projek Projektor spread the ideas of #Lawan in their own creative ways. Individuals who chose to participate in #Lawan initiatives expressed their dissent in their own ways without any need for direct affiliation with any groups.
The fact that no one organisation or individual can lay claim on these campaigns is important. In our recent history, social and political movements have often revolved around certain personalities and organisations, even if they had initially begun as consultative collectives. Perhaps that is inevitable as movements mature and grow in complexity, greater accountability is required from the many different stakeholders and financial supporters.
The professionalisation of civil society that takes place alongside this maturing process also solidifies hierarchies and accepted ways of doing things which lower the appetite for unnecessary career risks. This is a normal phenomenon, and we should want it to happen to ensure the sustainability of organisations to promote their goals over a long period of time. However, in moments of great crisis, we also need organisations to be nimble and maybe even adventurous.
Raising awareness on problems affecting all Malaysians
For these new movements and organisations, are those values enough to fulfil their goals? I do not believe so, as they are trying to correct systemic problems that worsened, not emerged, during the pandemic. They have done spectacularly to raise awareness on the problems of hunger, economic struggles, despair, and governance that affect all Malaysians, but the solutions to them will require more than charity or protests.
These movements, and those that will be inspired by them, will need to evolve into more complex organisations with the capacity and bargaining power to push through pressure and much-needed reforms. This will take longer than a few weeks of organising and meetings, and a few clicks of a mouse. The longer-term work of building wider credibility and strength will require more brains, assets, networks and eventually, votes.
This should be the point of equilibrium between the established players and the upstarts. There is more to be gained from collaboration and knowledge-sharing than to pretend that the other does not exist. Uncelebrated as it may be, we have a long history of dissent and contestation against authority, and the knowledge that has been generated from those experiences needs to be transmitted forward. There also needs to be an honest acknowledgement of one another’s competencies and weaknesses, and a willingness to listen.
At the same time, there need to be more opportunities for new generations to lead in a meaningful way. Half of the country’s population is aged under 30, but are their views properly represented?
In the current Dewan Rakyat, only 0.9 percent of MPs are under-30, and 10.36 percent are under-40. If these figures are used as an indicator of youth representation in decision-making roles, there is a lot of fixing that needs to be done.
This is not only because young people should be allowed to speak and decide on issues that affect them, but also because these opportunities to lead are essential if a competent generation of second-liners are going to be available when it is time for them to take over.
Young people’s responsibilities need not be limited to producing social media posts or administrative tasks that require little skill. They need the space and trust to make organisational decisions, and the opportunity to learn.
Social movements need support from all of society and will need the community’s support and investment over a long period of time to make things happen. A fragmented civil society will not inspire the people’s confidence, and it will likely find it very hard to persuade people on the merits of change, even when things are terrible.
If in the past two decades we have restored peaceful protests into our toolkit for collective movements to protect and preserve our democracy, the coming decade must see us restore our ability to re-energise our reform movements, in as many forms possible, to be able to see real progress. - Mkini
LUTFI HAKIM ARIFF is a member of Gen Meme, a digital collective for the empowerment of people trying to make ends meet every day through community and advocacy.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
✍ Credit given to the original owner of this post : ☕ Malaysians Must Know the TRUTH
🌐 Hit This Link To Find Out More On Their Articles...🏄🏻♀️ Enjoy Surfing!
Post a Comment