The Economist is a sought after weekly newspaper, though it is becoming unaffordable at RM30 an issue.
Its Leaders are masterly, though we may take issue with their intellectual origins. It has clever ads, too.
One goes like this: Two thirds of the globe is covered by water. The rest is covered by The Economist. Exceptional idea, brilliant words. Even the old master David Ogilvy would envy the copy.
But not all The Economist publishes is exceptional or brilliant. Nor what it wants for a country is good for the country.
This notwithstanding, the July 20 issue of The Economist nudges the Pakatan Harapan ruling coalition towards the path of what it sees as a liberal democracy.
This is a good thing. But not all forms of Western liberalism will be good for multiracial, multi-religious Malaysia.
Bush and Blair tried to export such values through liberal democracy to the Middle East, not through ballots but bombs. They showed neither concern nor compassion for an older civilisation and culture. Illiberal means to a so-called liberal end. The irony was never lost on us.
Sadly, copycat Bushes and Blairs are doing what the originals failed at. The seizure of the Iranian tanker by Britain off Gibraltar on July 4 is part of the grand plan of the United States and Europe to impose their values on others.
Having failed to do that to the Arabs, now they try their luck on the Persians. The US, at one point, did expressly seek a regime change by force. And it still does, though the call is stifled somewhat. This from nations that trumpet the values of liberal democracy.
We, Asians, who are not schooled in such undemocratic regime changes, often wonder why Iranians aren’t allowed to elect their leaders? We are glad, The Economist finds this axis of illiberalism discordant.
The Economist wants democracy for Malaysia. So does the New Straits Times. Oh no, not the Bush and Blair ballots by bombs. We mean like the one on May 9 that elected the PH coalition to power by votes.
The best form of democracy must result in a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Other means wouldn’t take us there. Fair politics is one which has its eyes fixed on the ground.
Where the tyre meets the road, there reality lies. The German pragmatic chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, put it well: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”.
Malaysia is a land where many mingle and mix, yet the many retain what they began with in the first place. Here, there is no shame in being of a race. Being racist is.
Fair politics in such a land is about the possible, the attainable — the art of delivering the next best.
Like The Economist, the NST wants oppression to end. Not only in Malaysia, but elsewhere too. The strong mustn’t be allowed to muscle the weak out. Fair politics is also about just space. Prosperity cannot be the birth right of the one per cent. The 99 per cent have a right to a livelihood too. The rich and the rest isn’t a pretty story.
Where capitalism fails, politics must deliver the compassion.