Sore Losers?
April 20, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Posted in Being Me | 3 CommentsDisclaimer: I am male, and not a member of AWARE.
Ok. So I get that the new Exco of AWARE is radically different from the old Exco. But what I do not get is why a group that talks about democracy and wants there to be a flourishing civil society, would act contrary to their own cherished views. This Operation Leper seeks to basically make life difficult for those who do not belong to their camp.
I may not agree with the new leadership at AWARE, but to be honest they won fair and square. AWARE had no rules or by-laws that prevented new members from running. They also do not have a compulsory voting system. The new leadership just managed to get more of their supporters out than the old guard. So now the losers cry foul and say that there was an “outrageously illeberal, undemocratic, and unprincipled takeover of AWARE.”
This is the problem why I dislike bleeding heart liberals, but prefer the pragmatic left-center. Liberals are all for free speech and democracy until it turns out that you get to criticise them and oust them from office. Then suddenly its only free speech and democracy for “intelligent” (basically like-minded) people.
Yeah I’d like to know why the president-elect walked out, seeing as how she could have stayed and perhaps prevent the young turks from ruining the place. But I digress.
The main point is that the election was not undemocratic. Snouts were counted and the turks had more snouts than the old guard. I cannot see how it was unprincipled since there were no real rules with regards to who could run in AWARE. Illiberal, maybe. But then again I still don’t know what the leadership of AWARE will be doing. They can have personal views, but sometime as a body they may make decisions that may not reflect their personal beliefs.
I also do not get how this goes against the idea of a civil society. Wikipedia defines civil society as (taken from LSE):
“Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.”
I also don’t get what the problem is. If AWARE is meant to promote women’s views, then I think that there’s always going to be a bunch of views out there. Feminism is not a unified front, just like every other ideology. Also if the issue is over the issue of GLBTQ, then I think opposing the young turk exco makes no sense. While AWARE has previously been friendly towards the pro-GLBTQ position, it’s still not AWARE’s primary contituency. There are plenty of women issues to take care of, before worrying about sexual orientation.
So back to my main point. If people really respect democracy and due process down at AWARE, then all this yelling and shouting seems a little hypocritical to me. It’s not the fault of the young turks that they were better organised and got out the vote. The old guard got complacent. The members got complacent. They let those they disagree with in. But it was not a coup, and the ballots were not illegally stuffed. The young turks played by the rules and got the votes they needed to win.
In the end, I think that those who are saying that the election results somehow were wrong, fail to be true democrats and respect the fact that this happened because they were sleeping at the wheel. So in truth, perhaps these so called “civil” society advocates are really “uncivil.”
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.-
-
- lah.cc :: Blogs For Singapore | sgBlogs :: Singapore's Blogosphere - | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
I disagree. It’s true that a robust civil society must encompass diverse viewpoints. But the issue is how one should go about promoting one’s viewpoint. Organizing a systematic takeover of a group which has historically been associated with a certain ideology (not just on GLBTQ, but also on abortion, divorce, marriage, marital rape, etc.) in order to advance your rival ideology under that organization’s banner is not consistent with the ideals behind civic participation and activism.
A true participatory democracy is crucially dependent on goodwill, trust and dialogue, built up over time… (and this is even more true in Singapore’s sparse civil society). To try to capitalize on the goodwill which AWARE has cultivated, rather than starting their own organization, runs counter to these ideals of civic participation.
The new team played by the rules, yes, but democracy isn’t just electoral democracy (who wins the most votes in elections held from time to time), but includes notions of participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. It is in this broader sense that we can legitimately say the PAP government is ‘undemocratic’; the same applies to the new AWARE Exco.
Comment by la nausée— April 22, 2009 #
Well done, nice strategy dividing liberals into pragmatic liberals you like to keep as pets and inoffensive intellectual opponents, and bleeding heart liberals who shouldn’t be tolerated. I like!
Not as sophisticated as the hypocritical invention of “decent liberals” by British intellectuals to support waterboarding, and bash any other liberal who sought to condemn these acts.
Nice going on the civil society definition here. I note you didn’t do any research on what kind of environment civil society needs to survive. Or what civil society looks like what practised ‘right’.
Roger Putnam – not a liberal – notes that civil society thrives when groups, their members, and their activities generate the desired networks, norms and trust at the heart of social capital.
Michael Walzer – not a liberal – notes that a healthy civil society is characterised by pluralistic and accomodationist values that promote the stability and effectiveness of the democratic polity.
Michael Foley and Bob Edwards – Catholic thinkers – note a healthy civil society fosters patterns of civility in the actions of citizens in a democratic polity.
My questions to you are:
1. How are the non-transparent takeover, purge, lockdown on communications by the new guard not a problem for civil society? There are several civil society theorists – none of whom are liberal – who would like to have a word with you.
2. If you really respect democracy and due process, why are you painting the takeover as acceptable? The two ideals you mention should rule out as acceptable, behaviour like non-transparency, takeovers where people are swept into power without discussion, explanation, or introduction, unexplained organisation-wide purges, and so on.
You seem to be wilfully conflating the pro forma legitimacy with moral legitimacy of the takeover. How very interesting!
Comment by Akikonomu— April 22, 2009 #
Your view – “In the end, I think that those who are saying that the election results somehow were wrong” were wrong.
My view — Nobody says they were “wrongly” elected. What people are worried about is their use of Aware’s clout and reputation to pursue narrow, bigoted goals, thus violating the fundamental principles of the group – i.e. to help all women.
Disclaimer – I’m also a man (with two children) and I find it strange you haven’t written abour the new exco’s homophobic views.
There’s enough intolerance in Singapore — bigotry is the issue, not election strategy
Comment by ben lim— April 24, 2009 #