THE main role of democratically elected politicians is to serve the people. They debate issues and develop policies for the benefit of the people, regardless of their backgrounds. The people then contribute by paying taxes in return for better education, economic prosperity, good healthcare services, and so on.

However, holding onto the title is not a walk in the park, especially in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country with a relatively young democracy like Malaysia.

On the one hand, one would enjoy being hailed and celebrated like a king or a television celebrity. On the other, one is expected to be the chief cook and bottle washer, or a one-stop centre appropriated with a suggestion box, whom the public can voice out their complaints to and expect things to be settled after a period of time.

Indeed, after six decades of embracing democracy, the nature of so-called feudalistic and informal politics, described by an emphasis on personal and patron-client relationships, is still strong. Many still see politicians as heroes who are supposed to look after everything, even for personal matters, such as faith.

What is equally upsetting is that this old political ethos also carries with it the inability to distinguish between what is termed as private and public spheres, or precisely between personal devotion to God and public responsibility.

In Malaysia, being the representative of the rakyat, one cannot but admit the fact that religious values, particularly those of Islam, a matter that falls under the private sphere, will be taken into account for many things – including one’s political actions and decisions for the good of the public. Religion has always been the primary filter that needs to be passed through.

Moving into Malaysia’s post-Barisan Nasional leadership certainly requires a look back at how a huge portion of Malaysians who still uphold Islam above anything else generally perceive politicians, and the extent to which politicians play a role in our everyday politics. Equally important as well is the relevance of religion in assessing the performance of politicians.

The news that popped up recently had people divided. One important point we can take from the recent brawls over the khalwat raid, Oktoberfest, and the LGBTQ matter is the debate on what is understood as sin and crime. These issues reflect on how well this segment of people is able to distinguish between what falls under private and public spheres, and what falls under the responsibilities of the politicians.

Unfortunately, politicians who make unpopular decisions have to face the loudest critics. Such was what happened when the Religious Affairs Minister in the Prime Minister’s department, Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa, urged all agencies under him to not interfere with the personal sphere with regards to khalwat raids carried out by the religious authorities.

One only needs to devote some time reading comments or more accurately, mockeries, on  social media, to see him branded as a liberal who has gone astray from the true teachings of Islam. Instead of casting judgments on the politician’s public performance, they problematise his faith and personal life.

It is perhaps that we tend to judge people’s religiosity, and too often we base our faiths or religiosity on others. We measure the level of our faith by counting the sins of others and we want our elected representatives to get the job done on our behalf.

Instead of making sure that the government safeguards the citizens’ rights to embrace religion in a free and peaceful manner, we ask the government to only look after our own particular faiths against the others.

Having said that, the flaw should not be observed from only one side. Politicians should also not let their religious values influence their political actions. As politicians represent people of different beliefs and disbeliefs, the decisions that may be suitable for those who share his faith may not be ideal to others.

One could call for separation of religion from state – as is in the West – to secure religious liberty for the citizens. But in Malaysia, that may entail the idea being misunderstood as restraining religion from one’s personal life, particularly when Islam is deemed as the state religion.

Nevertheless, interweaving between faiths and state can lead to undesirable consequences. When Islamic affairs are sanctioned as state affairs, then religious policing by the state in the public sphere is inevitable.

One good example is the French government’s ruling to ban the wearing of burqas, an enveloping outer garment worn by some Muslim women. The UN Human Rights Committee has however argued that the law is “too sweeping”, and rather than protecting fully veiled women, the law could produce the opposite effect of confining them to their homes.

It must be said that in a mature democracy, not only everyone must expand their band of tolerance, but also understand the different roles, functions, and responsibilities of their representatives. At this point, political education for the public is vital. Democracy, after all, recognises the idea of self-government, where the people are supposed to be more independent.

Whatever it may be called, Malaysia is a country of cultural diversity that houses people of different ethnicities and religious identities. Everyone should expect the politicians and their decisions to be answerable to all people, no matter the religion or ethnicity.

Therefore, placing religion within the private domain and separating religious lenses in making public decisions will ensure every citizen can be treated fairly and valued equally, irrespective of their religious outlook. – October 30, 2018.

* Izzuddin Ramli is an analyst at Penang Institute. He received his master degree in Political Science from University Sains Malaysia (USM). His research interests include Malay political culture, religion and politics, and subaltern politics, particularly in arts.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.