The US election is officially over, and the Democrats now own the majority in both the House and the Senate, effectively relegating President Bush to that akin to a lame duck. This is a term used to describe a leader who is hamstrung in seeing his agenda through.
The institution of Congress is a good means of check and balance to prevent the tendency for excesses by an opinionated leader. However, the potential for stalemate where decision making is mired in bipartisan ideologies is similarly great.
On balance, having no decision made is still a preferable outcome to one that is bulldozed through for expediency, worse if it is for personal gratification, rather than the long-term good of the nation.
In comparison, Malaysia has been ruled by the same party, which is more of a coalition of race-based parties, since independence. The stability that ensued has enabled the country to develop by leaps and bounds, the infrastructure laid down having catalyzed further development through the multiplier effect.
However, as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The de facto one-party rule has also given rise to an aura of invincibility with its attendant erosion of transparency and accountability. It has come to a stage where the incumbents are so deeply entrenched that nepotism and other ills associated with an authoritarian rule are taking its toll on the country’s economy.
Some of those elected have forgotten that they are the people’s voices, voices of reason and conscience, and are busily engaging in, or rather fixating on, a spree of self-enrichment.
They become a special class of citizens, flouting laws with abandon, instead of enforcing them, the proverbial fox guarding the hen.
Sure, here and there, now and then, rallying calls, while clarion, for reform, a politically incorrect term not too long ago, can be heard through the blogosphere and other alternative (read as non-mainstream) news media since the government has an invisible hand in the mainstream mass media. But alas, they are like the lone voices in the wilderness, hardly raising a murmur.
Those with means and resources at their disposal and seeing that any efforts to turn around the dire situation are an exercise in futility, head toward the exit door en masse. Before that ponderous decision was made, some did agonize between staying back for a perceived bleak future and leaving loved ones behind. But eventually personal security, or rather the security of those who come after, prevails.
Some would say these people flee, or they prefer to be treated as second class citizens by somebody they deem as superior. Perhaps emboldened by the democratic regime in their adopted countries or they still feel a lingering loyalty to their birth-land, some of those who are on the diaspora bandwagon have elected to join the chorus of discontent, using the Internet as a platform to heap criticisms on the incumbent, hoping to galvanize public opinion as a potent tool to redress the maladministration.
Then again they too have to suffer the indignity of being labeled as armchair critics, having no moral right to dissent in absentia.
Ultimately, one is responsible for one’s own action, be it staying, fleeing, or just being fatalistic. At least those who are seeking greener pastures else where have taken matter into their own hands, and they would have to live with the consequences one way or the other.
So decide and make the best of whatever it is. The important thing is wherever you're, in your own way, make this a better world for humanity, for the environment, and for all the sentient beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment