For the rabbit, PAS and DAP may lose the deer
James Wong Wing On

French political theorist Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) is now considered as a great enlightened philosopher whose theory on social contract laid the foundation of modern parliamentary democracy.

Unlike another English social contract theorist, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who was extremely pessimistic and cynical about human nature and thought that human beings are fundamentally rational but selfish egoists who must fight each others in order to survive and prosper, Rousseau was of the opinion that human beings are actually capable of cooperative behaviour even though the cooperation may be motivated by self-interests.

To illustrate and support his opinion, Rousseau once used a very simple parable of seven hunters. After rational calculations, seven hunters decided they would have a better chance of catching a stag were they to combine and cooperate.

They reasoned that if they cooperated, they would have an 80 percent chance of capturing an animal, although they would then have to divide it among themselves, each getting a15 percent share.

This was a better situation than if each hunter acted independently. Acting on his own, a hunter would have perhaps only have a five percent chance of catching a stag, although if he were to succeed, he would keep 100 percent of the game.

Thus, it is rational for the seven self-interested hunters to cooperate. However, Rousseau also cautioned us that the cooperative scheme of the seven hunters might fall apart. Why? Because when the cooperative scheme is being carried out, a hare might come within easy range of one of the hunters, and the hunter calculates that he has a 100 percent chance of capturing that hare.

And if he captures the hare alone, he does not have to share it with the other six. However, his act of chasing the hare could makes noises that finally drives off the stag, and the other hunters will have to go home empty-handed and hungry.

Secret thoughts

We can go further logically - if that hare-hunter also fails because of bad luck or the lack of skill, all the seven would get nothing. And if the larger animal is not a more peaceful stag but an
aggressive tiger, then some or all the hunters might be killed and devoured in a situation of utter confusion.

In our situation today, both PAS and DAP needs to reflect on the parable of Rousseau very seriously in order to improve or upgrade their strategic planning, as well as to re-build mutual trust and confidence.

Both parties entered into a cooperative effort in the form of the Barisan Alternatif (BA) after former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was sacked, arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and tortured.

The alliance was first meant to be a political mechanism of collective self-defence against what was perceived to be the common threat, namely the Umno-dominated Barisan Nasional (BN) which wields draconian powers. The BA alliance was intended to defensively countervail the BN Leviathan.

Both PAS and DAP perhaps calculated that, if they contested the elections separately, and without coordination and cooperation, both would have been `devoured'. They were right.

However, as perhaps both parties now see that the chances for them to act independently have improved due to the continued decline in popularity of Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan, they have started to entertain secret thoughts of capturing hares separately, instead of the original stag cooperatively.

Window-dressing Opposition

Thus, PAS again talks about setting up an Islamic state, although none of their leaders seem to be able to tell Muslims what actually is an Islamic state, and all of them know fully well that in the
foreseeable future, the party cannot win the at least 129 parliamentary seats alone to amend the Federal Constitution.

The secularly rational and mathematically calculative (in the grand tradition of Thomas Hobbes) DAP too, again displays its anti-Islamic state rhetoric, without any rational and mathematical basis.

PAS and DAP might be separately, but simultaneously, calculating that alone, they could capture more Muslim and Chinese/non-Muslim votes, respectively, in the coming general elections.

Without BA, both parties could avoid to be perceived by its hardcore or traditional supporters as making compromises. Without BA, PAS could theoretically out-Islam Umno, and DAP out-Chinese MCA, Gerakan and the Supp in Sarawak.

Assuming this analysis and observation is correct, both PAS and DAP should re-consider their strategic shift for the following reasons.

First, if they could really capture the hares in their traditional constituencies respectively, so what? At best they can only position themselves again on the fringes of the Umno center - as a permanent, ineffective, window-dressing Opposition.

Second, if Umno continues to emerge as the powerful center, it would be easier for it to project itself as moderate, domestically and internationally, and then use draconian laws to suppress the
separated and divided `Islamic fundamentalist' and `Chinese chauvinist' fringes, with a higher degree of legitimacy.

Third, if PAS and DAP act independently in the coming general elections, they run the risk of freeing the mass of their uncontrollable supporters from inter-religious and inter-ethnic
considerations and restraints, providing a convenient pretext for the suppression of `Islamic fundamentalism' (PAS) and `Chinese chauvinism' (DAP).

Fourth, the above-mentioned strategy of PAS and DAP of acting independently to maximise individual gains would only work on the assumption that the number of their traditional and hardcore supporters will be as numerous, geographically concentrated and as strong as before the 1990s.

But that assumption actually needs to be re-examined carefully due to generational, demographic and attitudinal changes.

Fifth, from past experience, both PAS and DAP should know that even if they are formally disengaged from BA and separated from each other, the BN propaganda machinery will still charge them with cooperating `secretly' or `indirectly'.

Quixotic attempt

As for the mass of DAP supporters who are really frightened by the prospect of an Islamic state despite the simple arithmetic proof suggesting the impossibility of PAS setting up one alone, they should calmly hypothesise a situation of PAS without BA and without DAP cooperation - would the re-marginalised, friendless and lonely PAS, free of all multilateral constrains, be more moderate or otherwise?

They should also hypothesise a situation of DAP alone fighting a two-front war against the BN, and BA comprising PAS and Keadilan/PRM which could field Chinese and Indian candidates. A self-centered and egoistic DAP has no moral right to expect others to be altruistic.

Similarly, hot-headed supporters of PAS should also hypothesise a situation where PAS alone fighting a two-front war against BN, and a BA comprising DAP and Keadilan/PRM. They should look into the majority votes in individual constituencies won by PAS with more
discerning, and less starry eyes.

As PAS is not capable of setting up an Islamic state, whatever it may be, single-handedly, and as DAP is also not capable of building a `democratic socialist Malaysian Malaysia' alone, the only realistic way out for them is to stay together in BA, synergise, and move towards the center together with Keadilan/PRM to provide even stronger checks and balances to Umno and BN.

The task of re-building mutual trust and confidence for the continued cooperation between PAS and DAP is certainly more pressing than the quixotic attempt to paint pictures of an `Islamic state' or a `democratic socialist Malaysian Malaysia', positively or negatively.