|
|||||||||||||||
|
A brave new world? Worrying implications for democracy
Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. We also welcome donations.
Unfortunately, this peculiarly Malaysian “fear factor” became painful reality on 21 March – and yet another institution bit the dust on our way to a promised brave new Malaysia. Despite numerous complaints and the evident biases of the electoral process, never before had the Election Commission’s oversight of elections themselves and the actual act of polling been so tarnished as to bring into question the validity of the elections. Complaints related more to the length of the campaign period, the bias of the media, the use of government machinery, and just plain money politics. Even in 1999, at a time of great upheaval and uncertainty, the actual polling process itself was not seriously doubted, bar an instance here and there. Unlike the situation in tin-pot dictatorships, at no time in the past fifty years have Malaysian elections looked as bad as they did this time around, a time when the outcome was never in doubt, whatever the speculation about the extent of the ruling party’s victory. Previously, a case could be made against the Election Commission’s bias in constituency delineations, its inefficiency in voter registration, its favouring the ruling party in setting the length of the campaign period, and the personal biases on the part of polling officers. However, there was little questioning of the Election Commission’s conduct of the elections itself. This time around the Elections Commission looked more like a partisan participant than a neutral referee. Just consider some of the incontrovertible facts:
Up till now, and despite its numerous, even justified, complains, the political opposition in this country has believed in elections and has participated in them with much vigour, if with relatively little success. Any serious undermining of this faith sows the seeds of instability. It matters little that it may serve the interests of some of the leaders of the opposition parties to claim electoral fraud. What matters is that enough happened to lend such claims a measure of credibility. A brave new world... going where? Turning to the outcome, 80 per cent of the electorate turned out and delivered over 90 per cent of the seats to the ruling party. Such results, in most other contexts, would be greeted with a knowing snigger. Here, it was hailed as a glorious victory, a vindication of our democratic process – and not only by local pundits, but by the “western” media. Shouldn’t there have been some discussion of a system that delivers such results, a system in which a party garners 64 per cent of the popular vote, but over 90 per cent of the seats? But most emblematic, perhaps, was the vote in the national capital, Putrajaya, with a turnout of over 95% with 99% of the vote going to the candidate from the ruling party. It used to be that a result such as Putrajaya’s could only happen with postal ballots under circumstances that hardly allowed for voluntary consent. Yet, perhaps the voters of Putrajaya, mostly civil servants, understood that discretion was the better part of valour – an understanding more than amply “justified” by the current unseemly purge in Terengganu. No one, with any personal knowledge of civil servants, would believe that their voting behaviour represented their sentiments – an outcome of 70-30 in favour of the ruling party, perhaps, but 99-1?
In the developed understanding of a democracy, civil servants do not have to be political soul mates or lackeys of the party in power. In normal circumstances, they simply have to serve the government of the day, regardless of their own political inclinations. In abnormal circumstances, the public expects them to serve a higher ethic of legality and accountability, and to turn “whistle-blower” if the need should arise as in cases of clear corruption or illegality. There are yet other grounds for dis-ease. Sufficient disappointment has been expressed with the new cabinet. More interesting is the observation by an astute correspondent to MalaysiaKini that the cabinet comprises about half of the Members of Parliament. In our parliamentary system, there isn’t an unambiguous divide between executive and legislative, since the members of the executive are selected from among the members of the legislative. Still, there is a division of functions, with the legislative available, in principle, to provide some counter-weight to the executive. A back-bench revolt is, in principle, a possibility. But when half of the ruling party’s members of parliament are also in the executive, and the ruling party has over 90 per cent of the members of the parliament, there is obviously no way that the legislative can act as a counter-weight to the executive. This further bodes ill for the promised entry into a brave new era of accountability and of “excellence, glory and distinction”. Previously, we accepted that parliament was in fact a rubber stamp for the executive. However, with the new regime, parliament has been constituted as a rubber stamp to the executive: every minister, deputy minister and parliamentary secretary is duty bound to go along with the decisions of the executive of which he or she is a part. Moreover, at a time when there have been unannounced cut-backs in both education and health, this exorbitantly large cabinet will cost the country at least RM1 million a month in salaries alone. Further, some of the division of functions and the appointments, as well as some events since provide yet more foreboding. Take the re-organisation of the ministry of science, technology and environment and the ministry of primary industries. Is it an accident that both the minister for natural resources and the environment and the minister for plantation industries and commodities are held by Sarawak MPs, the former by a first term Member of Parliament? In the first place, Sarawak has not particularly distinguished itself for its environment-friendliness. In the second place, it is well-known that just about the only state in the country where there can be significant plantation development is Sarawak. Are we looking at a future where there will be even greater clearing of forest for plantation development? In the third place, why was not another Sarawak MP, now in his second term and someone associated with the Sarawak Natural Resources and Environment Board since its inception, appointed as the new minister for natural resources and the environment? Why instead, was a first termer, a close associate of the Chief Minister of Sarawak, and someone anointed by the Chief Minister as a leading candidate for succession, chosen? Although these new ministries yet to be organised – only the ministers have been named – the Department of Environment has been treated as a step-child, and been told to vacate its offices in the old Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, although it does not yet have a new home. Is this an indication of the importance of the environment in the hierarchy of concerns? The Badawi "feel good" factor? If these matters are enough blight on the dawn of a promised new era of a gentler, kinder, more compassionate, and more accountable government of “excellence, glory and distinction”, the election results gives rise to concern about our public and political culture, with some notable exceptions. Media and other pundits have attributed the ruling party’s staggering win to the person of Abdullah Badawi and to the “feel good” factor that he allegedly generated. Indeed, an observer from Mars might be forgiven if she had thought that there was only one candidate for the elections, given the uniquity of Badawi’s face. This is the so-called “Badawi factor”. The Malaysian and world media declared the outcome of the elections to be a massive defeat for PAS. A tsunami had hit it, so it was declared. Yet, a closer and careful look at the results – accepting them at face value – belies this conclusion. There was indeed a tsunami – but it hit in the rich, multi-ethnic central region of Selangor, KL, Negri Sembilan and Melaka even more than in the poor, largely mono-ethnic northern region states. Indeed, there was an even larger tidal wave in Pahang, while Johor further confirmed its distinction of being the “dictatorship” of the BN. Contrariwise, the one state where the “Badawi factor” might be reasonably thought to have its greatest cache, namely his home state of Penang, turned out to be a bit of a hold-out and a spoil sport. Thus, while the central region states voted at above the national average for the Barisan Nasional, Penang voted at well below that average. Looking only at valid votes cast, the vote for the BN was 66 per cent in Selangor, 59 per cent in KL, 70 per cent in Negri Sembilan and 72 per cent in Melaka. In Penang, the “Badawi factor” managed a comparatively miserable 57 per cent, enough for a solid win, but hardly a landslide. Why is this important? In 1999, given the great uncertainties, it was understandable of the rich central region, in particular the non-Malays, went for security and voted the BN. In 2004, there was no uncertainty as to the outcome and it might have been expected that the rich central region, the home of the Malaysian middle class, might have tempered their votes and either split their state and parliamentary votes, or voted for greater representation of the opposition. But the central region, despite being vociferous about the failures of government, did not. A measure of this is the decline in the absolute number of votes for the DAP. Thus, in 1999, the DAP won a total of 770,491 votes. In 2004, they received only 611,286 votes – in the context of a significantly larger electorate. This represents an absolute decline of over 159,000 votes. Indeed, even in the Federal Territory of KL, the DAP saw its share of the vote decline from 30 to 24 per cent. While there was obviously a swing in Malay votes in Kelantan and Terengganu, there was an equally large swing in Malay votes in the central region, delivering massive losses to PAS and Keadilan. Moreover, in the northern Malay states, the large swing still left PAS and Keadilan with over 40 per cent of the votes, in the central region, the swing left them with a small rump. Evidently, the rich central region had little use for an opposition. This outcome should occupy analysts, especially those who think of the middle class as the natural base for building multi-party democracies. At the same time, the decline in votes for the DAP should also give pause for thought – in particular, the possible fade out of the DAP into the role of what is essentially an “appointed” opposition. The Northern region What then of the tsunami in the north? It should be recalled that Kelantan and Terengganu are the only two states in the peninsula which have had changes in state government. Viewed in that perspective, while Abdullah Badawi can obviously feel good about UMNO’s showing, it is not at all evident that this represents the eclipse of PAS. What is clear is that PAS continues to retain a solid following in the northern states and remains in reach of winning back those states. Moreover, a closer look at the results elsewhere indicates that it continues to have a small but solid following. Thus, far from being swept away, it remains a party to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, it is equally clear that contrary to all the insults heaped upon the voters of the northern states – the equivalent of the old fear factor of “ulu” – they indeed do vote in a considered fashion, hardly afraid of expressing themselves. Leaving aside all the irregularities, what is clear is that there was a swing of voters away from PAS. The voters were evidently disappointed with what they had seen. There is therefore a lesson in all this for PAS. Unfortunately, the irregularities have allowed the PAS leadership to evade these issues. This, perhaps, is the most negative consequence of these elections – for it is evident that there can be no viable opposition without PAS, but there can be no viable opposition with a PAS that refuses to face up to the realities of Malaysia and of the wishes of the people of Malaysia. Keadilan – end of the road? Given the collapse of Keadilan in the central region, the region which many thought to be its natural home – multi-ethnic and middle class – what then is its future? Despite its massive losses, Keadilan retains the affection – and it must be that, in the face of such a widespread collapse – of something like 15-20 per cent of the electorate. Moreover, it is a multi-ethnic 15-20 per cent. The big question is whether it is possible for it to build from this, and what needs to be done to do so. Some will suggest that it is the link to PAS that has been Keadilan’s undoing. At the same time, any hard-nosed assessment of the future demographic picture indicates that the only options are a continued link with PAS, a return to the BN, or contentment with being an “appointed” opposition in a few seats. These are the hard questions that confront the Keadilan leadership and its devoted followers. That there will be a reflux of some of its membership back to UMNO is inevitable. Can the rest consolidate and make something of its link to PAS to get the latter to face up to the fact that its policies and practice cannot appeal to a majority of Malaysians? If not, then once again, Malaysian politics will have lost yet another opportunity to build a multi-ethnic coalition that can trace out a path to a truly brave new world, for what we are now offered is pretty much the same old world, if with a gentle veneer. Now e-mail us and tell us what you think. Your comments might be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly. Alternatively, post your comments to the message board. | |||||||||||||||
But when half of the ruling party’s members of parliament are also in the executive, and the ruling party has over 90 per cent of the members of the parliament, there is obviously no way that the legislative can act as a counter-weight to the executive.
