The absence of the consent of the governed in government is the very definition of slavery.
— Jonathan Swift, Irish satirist
One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, explained Martin Luther King, Jr., for which there should be no retribution. Howard Zinn explained that protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it’s absolutely essential to it.
Therefore, it’s absolutely essential for laws to be made by seeking the consent of the governed. Quasi-sovereignty of citizens is a satirically sinister joke like democracy!
The Malaysian Federal Constitution (FC) at Article 5(1) states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.”That ominously means that an unfair or unjust law has the potential of depriving one of his life or personal liberty.
That’s a broad-brush stroke on the usually wrinkled and frayed canvas of human rights that needs discussion, debate and adjudication in a court of public opinion, certainly not a court of law.
People’s sovereignty is misplaced when government assumes an unassailable right to decide what’s good for them without transparent consultation. Meaningless laws passed by legislators without the consent of the governed is tyranny, if not an irony of democracy.
Americans challenge their government based on the no-nonsense preamble that clearly entrenches the People as those who ordained and established the Constitution through their representatives in Congress. Without batting an eyelid, some black-robed unelected officials of government declared that the Preamble to the US Constitution is not part of the written constitution!
In Malaysia, the consent of the governed is hardly mentioned in the FC except for its implied acquiescence that a general election be held every five years to give meaning and substance to voters’ consent.
Articles 113 to 120 (Elections), and the Thirteenth Schedule do not mention the mandatory five years. This contemplates a political question which means the consent of the governed is unwelcome, unnecessary and unwanted.
Since the presence of the consent of the governed is known by its absence, the need for a general election every five years by the terms of the FC becomes an inconvenient necessity, if not an exercise in futility. The subject of the consent of the governed is generally relegated to a syllabus in the study of political science and law.
The consent of the governed is not found in the fundamental liberties from Articles 5-13 FC with its predictable array of exceptions. The consent of the governed is, at best, a Hobson’s choice for the voters, meaning ‘no choice.’ SOSMA, and the Sedition Act await patiently if and when you dare to question, challenge, or claim rights of sovereignty.
It is an open Malaysian secret that consent of the governed was monetised in several general elections. The pathos of the public trust when determined by pecuniary benefits screams fitfully, painfully, and endlessly.
A plutocratic oligarchy within a democracy complete with three organs of state is what most people in the free world inherit as a government. This is a very comfortable arrangement with sporadic intellectual outbursts in courts of law and palaces of justice germane to the rule of law, the separation of powers, the basic structure doctrine of the constitution, constitutional supremacy, and parliamentary supremacy where the consent of the governed is a non sequitur.
The consent of the governed has been replaced and displaced by the nuances of government consent and control. Nowhere in any election of public officials has this issue surfaced as a phenomenon that needs to be studied, discussed, debated and applied for any government seeking a purposive legitimacy.
Legitimacy of government becomes a hot-button issue when nobody votes. A nationwide civil disobedience movement, as conceptualised by Henry David Thoreau, was effectively used in India when Gandhi unleashed the non-violent and non-cooperation movement that triggered the first Brexit 1946-1947.
When the regime is immoral, the people, supposedly, are morally free from all obligations to it. It’s not always the same thing to be a good person and a good citizen, observed Aristotle which expresses the consent of the governed in a godless regime where pecuniary pursuits are preferable, persuasive and pervasive.
It’s been sixty-five years since we exchanged one tyrant for another. In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People, cautioned Eugene Victor Debs.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
