Open protest is a vital social movement strategy for CSOs to succeed (unedited article)

Fighting for a social cause until the desired change in policy and law is achieved is never straightforward or easy. It may even take years or decades, or it may not even bear fruit at all.

We live in an electoral democracy, where democratic voices can be very diverse, competitive and sometimes conflicting. Sometimes the loudest voices can come from a small group of interest lobbies, and these can be influential in influencing lawmakers and their political parties, although this phenomenon is an anti-democratic practice. Or there are social movements that go in the opposite direction and may seem more popular and influential than what some are working on.

It would be naive to assume that a social movement can achieve its goal simply by talking to or presenting its point of view or even research to those in power and along the power corridor (e.g. ministers, deputies, MPs, top civil servants, party leaders), without making the movement even bigger to gain the popular support and get more people to join the cause.

However, in order to determine whether a social movement is successful, it is necessary to look at how far the movement has come towards achieving the desired changes in policy and legislation, and whether the current approaches and strategies are working to bring the movement closer to the goal and target of the social cause.

Outgoing Bersih chairman Thomas Fann's statement on his resignation and the direction of the once popular movement has sparked some discussion and debate on how a social movement should proceed in the event of political change.

Thomas' ideal direction for Bersih to be the 'people's institution' seems to suggest that advocacy in a more professional and organised way, using its internal channels and network, acting as a lobby and sending its own people into the system, would make political reform take root and be implemented.

His rejection of his new deputy's vision of a 'people's movement' may explain why Bersih has not called for open (street) protests after the first change of government to Pakatan Harapan and currently under the so-called unity government, despite the apparent failure of successive Pakatan Harapan-led governments to do enough or sometimes not even wanted to implement the reforms they once promised. While the intention may be to keep connections and internal channels open, open and loud protest may seem to undermine the efforts of these advocates or jeopardise relations with those in power.

Bersih's first objective is to campaign for clean and fair elections in Malaysia. After the first transition to the Pakatan Harapan government, it is not fair to say that there has been no progress or gains in terms of policy changes through its advocacy approach (e.g. automatic voter registration, postal voting, cleaning up the electoral rolls), but too little to show for it, frustrating activists and the general public who still yearn for institutional reforms.

Some reform proposals may be quite familiar to some federal and state ministers who may have come from activist backgrounds and understand the issues. But when the position has changed from opposition member or activist to power holder in government, politicians have different concerns about party self-preservation and self-interest, with the aim of retaining power and increasing their influence and resources. Obviously, repeatedly presenting them with similar positions will not work, not because some politicians do not understand the issues and what might be better for the system or the public interest, but because doing what the advocates want may not be in their own best interests.

When politicians in power drag their feet on a particular reform agenda, civil society has to do what is necessary - build and demonstrate public support for a particular reform policy. This is where the power of the people and external public pressure would come into play, helping advocates to create impetus and urgency for those in power to deliver on their reform promises.

After all, politicians are still under pressure to meet the demands and expectations of the electorate, and a public image of poor performance and lack of political will could work against them at the next election, threatening their security of self-preservation. If open and street protests would help the cause, build the movement's momentum, educate and expand the popular support base, a serious activist should not dismiss the importance of this prong of strategies.

The emergence and victory of Yan Ke's team members elected to the Bersih Steering Committee should reflect the internal voices of the member organisations on what they think about the effectiveness of the previous approach, and their decision to bring in new ideas to make Bersih work better to achieve the coalition's goals.

If it were a football team, Yan Ke and new elected members would be the substitutes sent out to help the coalition score goals, given the new role of strikers or attackers that the previous Bersih team lacked. However, this does not mean that the previous members of the experienced midfielders, defenders and goalkeepers should quit the field. Although I can understand and respect this, I am still disappointed that the captain does not want to continue to lead the new team with added strength, and perhaps he does not see it that way.