Thursday, June 14, 2012

Similarities and Differences

All comparisons are normally based on similarities and differences. People draw comparison when things or people are so similar in forms, functions or purposes, and when they are so different or contradictory.

Such comparison is often made between people when setting up a partnership in marriage,
social or business association, and political parties in the pursuit of common goals.The common goals become more important than their similarities of differences.The similarities would be used the reinforce each others interest while the differences can be used to complement each other's shortcomings.

Political parties are famous for setting up a partnership based on common goals irrespective of conflicting and contradictory characteristics and even dogmas. Even when each party represents a different segment of society, when put together they can represent all the segments. That I believe is the philosophy of Barisan Nasional.

That philosophy has worked for more than half a decade. It worked well under able leadership who could integrate all interests amicably. If any other parties try to emulate this and failed it's not the philosophy that's bad but the inability of the leadership to come to terms with each other.

The Barisan philosophy has proven that differences in culture, mother tongue and religion need not be a stumbling block to a political partnership. As long as certain basic rules of tolerance and birthrights are observed, common objectives can be achieved by cementing a partnership or coalition. Why should cultural differences stand in the way if each party is ready to respect the other's culture? Why should mother tongue be an issue when a common national language has been agreed upon? And why should religion be a stumbling block when no one segment is forced to embrace the religion of the other segments or be subjected to its rules and regulations?

Only when the basic rules of tolerance and acceptance of birthrights are violated can there be problems. It's a failure of the internal process of negotiations and interest
integration within the partnership that caused the problems.The leaders of the component parties should be able to represent the interests of their supporters without violating the basic rules and birthrights of the other parties. A failure to do so can only reflect on the failures of the leaders as the philosophy of forming a partnership among parties with different interests and dogmas has been proven to work for more than half a decade in Malaysia.


kaykuala said...

Akhi Norzah,
Similarities and differences form the basic structures to work from. However, a multi-racial society presents a framework that automatically polarize actions and efforts against instead of towards each other. Each laments of being more deprived than the other. This prompts decisions to be coloured to take care of specific interests. The permutations create myriads of possibilities and problems.
The BN leaders had to grapple through this maze before. It is now made worst with the many allegations thrown freely from both divide with GE13 in mind. This time it's going to be bruising!


norzah said...

Precisely, Akhir Hank, it;s going to bruise BN very badly. Question is can a new coalition tackle the issues that have become explosive? Will GE13 return the same old group to deal with the problems or let a new group tackle the issue? Before the new group could even think of tackling the issues it must solve its own internal squabbles. Agree on fundamentals and the rest can be handled like what BN did in the past.