The Hindu Business Line : Freedom and security

The other day, referring to the present trouble in his country involving the Tamil population, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, declared in a lecture at Kuala Lumpur: “If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win,” adding, “Malaysians must never, ever take their peace for granted and they must continue to be responsible to each other”.

This is a fair enough statement from the leader of a democracy, where the Government in power has been elected under the Constitution of the land. The basic postulate on which the “fairness” aspect is based is the testing of Mr Badawi’s proposition before the bar of the people, when the time comes around for the next elections. In fact, as the textbooks always say, this is the check that a democracy poses for a “dictator” or a politician with dictatorial tendencies. The voter is always the King, controlling the ultimate lever of power — a duty imposed on him by the Constitution of his country.

Core of the sentiment

However, taken at face value, Mr Badawi’s statement throws up interesting possibilities with important ramifications for the democratic content of a society. Indeed, it can be argued that what the Malaysian leader said is nothing new at all. The core of the sentiment involved is that the citizen can enjoy the basic freedoms guaranteed to him under the law of the land but in such a way that it does not affect adversely the enjoyment of others in the same society of the same freedoms.

In our own Constitution, Article 19(a), which focusses on the “freedom of speech and expression”, states clearly that the fundamental right cannot stand in the way of the “operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”. If Mr Badawi’s emphasis on “public safety” is equivalent to the expression “public order” in the Indian Constitution, then the Malaysian Prime Minister can hardly be pulled up on general grounds for making the statement he has.

The problem, however, lies elsewhere, namely, in the mindset of the politicians in power regarding the use of the Constitution-sanctioned weapon to gag the voice of legitimate protest. The line between what is acceptable and what is not is decidedly very thin and, perhaps, everything depends on the democratic temper of the society involved.

Need to protect security

Thus, General Musharraf, who usurped power by deposing the Constitutionally-elected Pakistani Prime Minister, has always had recourse to the argument that the need to protect Pakistan’s society and security had impelled him to take over the reins of power. Last month, a close adviser of Musharraf, Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, talking about elections, said: “Elections give new identity, elections give new mandate, fresh hopes, fresh promises; but if elections became the basis of disintegration of a country, then the civilized world would stop holding elections, and that’s a fear in our minds because we’ve already suffered. That’s why you want stability, you want peace, and you want security”.

How close is Mr Badawi to this line of thinking? This is the important point if one wants to understand the nature of the Malaysian polity.

RANABIR RAY CHOUDHURY

More Stories on : Politics | NRIs | Impressions

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
An auction, it must be

National policy on farmers: Missing out some key issues

Why are we ‘slip slidin’ away’?

India’s dismal record on many fronts

Making Parliament accountable to people

Freedom and security

Selling smart

Wheat inflation