There is no sign of political instability abating in Malaysia, even for the first 10 days of the new year.
Perikatan Nasional (PN) seems to have lost its majority in Parliament after Machang MP Ahmad Jazlan Yaakob announced his withdrawal of support. This does not mean the collapse of the PN government yet, and certainly there is no cheer from their side while the pressure is mounting for them to take more drastic and stricter actions in handling the third wave of Covid-19 pandemic, which is at a record high worsening stage.
The pandemic has obviously failed to reduce politicking from both sides, which goes all the way back from the infamous “Sheraton move” last February.
Despite the PN government’s vulnerability, surprisingly they are still hanging onto power, albeit by the thinnest thread. The counter-coup side led by Anwar Ibrahim has not managed to cross the finishing line, but his reputation received a backlash after news revealed that he is willing to even court Umno politicians who are embroiled in corruption court cases.
The war cry for “returning people’s mandate” rings hollow, because those politicians were among the primary reasons the Pakatan Harapan (PH) supporters voted against Barisan Nasional, currently a significant component of PN.
Where is the voice of the rakyat in all this political turmoil? Does it concern about public opinion on such “sandiwara”? How often these politicking masterminds actually do care about people’s suffering due to the pandemic?
A survey poll conducted by Merdeka Centre before the onset of the third wave of the Covid-19 pandemic last August, showed that what tops the people’s mind about the biggest problem faced by the country is the economic concerns (58.8% respondents expressed this), followed by health (10.1%). Politics only ranked fifth, with merely 2.6% respondents. This reveals the strong discordance of the political scene with the reality on the ground.
However, when asked by the pollster on the country’s direction, the divergence of the responses according to ethnicity could not be any starker. After the PN government moved in, the difference in opinion between Malay and Chinese respondents has stayed a consistent 60-point gap, with the former showing large approval in the direction of the country under the new government while the latter strong disapproval.
This once again shows the inherent strong pattern of communal politics that Malaysians have been accustomed to in the past. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that Umno has been calling for a general election since the last quarter 2020.
The communal politics that is based on race and religion forms the most dominant political narrative, and is the source of deep social division in contemporary democratic Malaysia. It is especially true for the minorities who feel frustrated about being at the receiving end of just and fair treatment.
Ideally a healthy democracy is where a society that is large enough to contain many social cleavages according to the concerning issues – the more factions the better. Why?
This is because one might be with the majority in one issue but not the other, hence the person would stay humble and be mindful not to overexert his/her dominance but treat the minority with respect and fairness.
Philosophers such as Rousseau, Tocqueville and Madison share the concern about the “tyranny of the majority” in democracy. In Malaysia, this may emerge when the political divisive fault lines mostly converge on the communal lines, the most dominant one at the moment is “Malay-Muslim v Non-Malay-Non-Muslim”.
The question is, why do the other social cleavages, such as social class, environmental justice, liberty and issue-based advocacy, seem to lose their relevance and significance in electoral democracy?
Joseph Schumpeter’s competitive democratic ideal in 1942 presented the analogies, suggesting that we think of voters as analogues of consumers, parties and politicians as corresponding to firms, the votes politicians seek as proxies for profits, and the political parties’ policies being promoted as political goods and services.
With that in mind, look at how political parties are organised here in Malaysia, and how they differentiate themselves in the “political products” appealing to voters. When it comes to seat allocation and decision on which party to contest, the first and foremost factor all political parties look at is racial composition in that particular constituency.
No reason to suggest that this is not going to be the case for the next election, although this runs contrary to the fact that the aforementioned Merdeka Centre survey poll suggested that majority of voters care more for economy and health.
If the latter were the case, it does not matter if the candidate is non-Malay or/and non-Muslim as long as the side that has the best offer on the economic and health policy “products” would win the votes – this is rational, no?
But the political reality suggests otherwise, which means the communal politics is so strong and it serves the underlying logic of seats allocation. Probably this also partially reflects in the poll question about the country’s direction along ethnic lines.
One explanation is that the majority faction on communal politics does not see the dominant narrative problematic. In the Merdeka Centre poll, only 1% Malay respondents selected “race relations” as the biggest issue in the country, as compared to 8.1% Chinese and 6.1% Indian.
Given the recent decade of increasingly polarised race relations, Malay electorates, too, are moving further to the political right. This has detrimental effects on, and provides a great test to, the PH coalition that tends to position itself as multi-ethnic, (relatively) liberal and progressive.
Moving further to the right was to no avail in getting themselves more popular – before the collapse of the PH government. The coalition under Mahathir Mohamad had ventured that direction, including pandering to the pressure of the anti-ICERD faction and attending the Malay Dignity Congress, and yet the poll shows no improvement on popular support.
Thus, the idea of “triangulation” – moving to the right (where median voter is) in order to capture a majority of votes, is simply a good tactic but a wrong strategy.
It may not help to capture more voters on the right (the opponent may find them even more motivated, and respond by moving the voters further to the right), while further alienating and losing party loyalists and supporters on the left.
Therefore, political parties cannot work just by wooing voters from their current political position. Instead, they should innovate themselves so that they produce more persuasive narratives that would to attract voters.
Anwar, at the peak of his influence post-2008 election, once shouted a refreshing idea of “Ketuanan Rakyat”, responding to the long-standing Umno mantra “Ketuanan Melayu”, that even influenced PAS’ narrative transformation to “PAS for all”.
This shows that nothing is impossible if the politicians stay true to their principles and beliefs while working further on (and defending) their narratives.
Given also that political parties and politicians often have a problem of short-sightedness in chasing for votes (and power), they may be swayed more by the current prevailing political gravity forces.
It is more imperative for the rakyat to have their own diverse voices and civil society organisations (CSOs) to cultivate their own narratives.
People’s hopes and demands often do not agree substantially with what the political parties offer in their manifesto booklets (many do not follow afterwards, anyway).
Therefore, instead of letting political parties shape the narratives for our society, the civil society should organise themselves and take the lead, showing who we really are, and what kind of society we want to live in!
36th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 11 Jan 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment