|
|||||||||||||||
|
Keadilan: The need for introspection Important lessons to be learnt in defeat
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.
As far as the external factors were concerned, all opposition parties had to deal with an extremely uneven playing field. However the BN’s use of money, media and government machinery is nothing new. They are simply a constant part of the political landscape. These external impediments did not stop the opposition from winning 45 parliamentary seats nor did it prevent PAS from making an almost clean sweep of Kelantan and Terengganu in 1999. Neither did these impediments prevent the DAP from making some minor gains this time around. Try as they might, opposition parties have little control over the external impediments. While no one is suggesting that we don’t speak out on these issues, or criticize the Election Commission for its incompetence, it is important that we also address our own failings. In the aftermath of this disastrous outing it is important that Keadilan considers its mistakes and internal shortcomings in deciding the way ahead. What are some of the hard questions that Keadilan needs to consider? Over-confidence Did Keadilan overestimate the extent of support for the opposition within the Malay community? I know many activists who believed that it was an established fact that 60 – 70% of the Malay ground was with PAS and Keadilan. This may have been true in some parts of the country in 1999 – but it obviously did not hold true this time around! Did overconfidence and the continual mixing with people who saw the world in exactly the same way as they did prevent party activists from detecting the mood on the ground and picking up the warning signs? Victim of its own propaganda Was Keadilan a victim of its own propaganda? The amount of spin that exists in Keadilan circles is just phenomenal - so much so that many people don’t seem to be able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Is this kind of political culture healthy? Is it possible that all this spin makes one’s supporters detached and unconnected with what “normal” Malaysians think and feel?
Did Keadilan spend enough time and resources, these past four years, in strengthening the party? Or was this hard and painstaking work neglected because it was easier to just depend on PAS’ machinery and network? Did Keadilan overextend itself? It stood in 58 Parliamentary and 118 State seats. Given its limited resources and weak party machinery – did it have the capability to take on such an immense task? Could some of the reason for the defeat be attributed to a party machinery that was overstretched? Overestimating the radical constituency Have leaders in PAS and Keadilan overestimated the size of the radical constituency within the Malay electorate? Should the successes in 1999 have been interpreted as an endorsement of what PAS stood for or were the successes due to factors that had little to do with PAS’s ideology? The push to enact the Hudud, pronouncements relating to segregation and PAS’ release of their Dokumen Negara Islam (Islamic state document) were all geared towards playing the ideological issue to the hilt. Certainly there is a core constituency for which these issues are extremely important. However the question remains – what is the size of this constituency? Have PAS, Keadilan and some social activists overestimated the size of this ideological hardcore? What was the effect of pushing and harping on these ideological issues on both the Malay and non-Malay electorate? Second fiddle Has Keadilan taken the time and made the effort to project its own image and ideology? There are core differences between what PAS and Keadilan stand for – but has enough effort been made to demonstrate these differences? Did Keadilan stand up often enough or forcibly enough to PAS to demonstrate these differences to the public? Or has Keadilan’s muted response and occasional silence led to the public perception that in the ultimate analysis whatever PAS believed and wanted to do would prevail in the coalition between the two parties? Alliance with PAS Is Keadilan’s continued alliance with PAS a liability? Keadilan seems unable to even begin to question this relationship on account of the misguided notion that PAS had a stranglehold of the Malay ground. Now that it has been learnt that the situation, with respect to the Malay ground, is in fact much more complex and fluid, is it in Keadilan’s long term interest to continue with this relationship? The Badawi phenomenon Did Keadilan misread and mishandle the Badawi phenomenon? They chose to deal with Badawi in the same combative manner in which they had dealt with Mahathir. But Badawi succeeded in projecting a different persona to the public. The public sensed him, rightly or wrongly, to be of a different mould. The failure of Keadilan to deal with his demeanour and its failure to show a little appreciation for some “genuine” policy initiatives was a strategic error. By quickly dismissing everything that he did, by resorting to personal attacks and by insisting that he was simply part of the same old system, the opposition began to appear more and more unreasonable in the eyes of the public. This list is not exhaustive but it represents some vital concerns that Keadilan will have to deal with if it wants to move on. It is important at this difficult juncture, in the life of a political party, to remember that Keadilan still has a lot going for it. They have thousands of young, energetic and idealistic supporters. More importantly, Keadilan has shown that it is able to garner both Malay and non-Malay support. When Keadilan burst onto the political scene in 1999 they promised the Malaysian public a new brand of politics – a break with the politics of the past – politik baru, alaf baru. They gave the people hope. It was this hope and belief that things could change that encouraged many people to get more involved in the political process. This hope that things can change for the better still burns strongly. As Keadilan grapples with its demons in the dark days ahead, one hopes that its leadership is capable of rising to the occasion. Leaders must lead. It is in difficult times that bold and decisive leadership is required. Not a leadership that insists on playing to a particular gallery or a leadership that is incapable of coming to terms with the truth. Keadilan’s leadership has to critically take stock of what has happened and provide hope and direction. And this cannot be done without serious introspection. Keadilan should not compound its electoral debacle by continuing to sing the same old tune or by focusing on the external impediments and refusing to look within. There are important lessons to be learnt in defeat. 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. | |||||||||||||||
As Keadilan grapples with its demons in the dark days ahead, one hopes that its leadership is capable of rising to the occasion.
