In The Ring > The siege on democracy

MARCH 8, 2008 will be etched in the pages of Malaysian political annals as the date democracy bared its vigour.

The voices of ‘the right to choose’ were heard from the southern tip of Johor to the remote islands off Kedah, and from the furthest village to the most urbanised city. Almost eight million Malaysians exercised their right to vote.

Yes, the outcome will eternally be etched in Malaysian political folklore.

Or will it? In Malaysia, what has transpired is unique but is it a bona fide phenomenon or early signs of maturing constituents? From the global perspective, are the results an anomaly? Truth be told, a result like this wouldn’t even have warranted a raise of an eyelid in some countries.

But then again, granted, we are not ‘some countries’.

Barisan Nasional obtained 140 seats compared with 82 for the Opposition coalition. Only a year ago, the State of Kelantan was governed with a majority of one seat. Monday’s motion on the restructuring of the subsidy system is a testament that you can govern effectively with a “simple” majority.

But let us not lull ourselves into thinking that we don’t live in exciting times. The Malaysian political scene is gathering pace at such an unprecedented momentum that anyone with even the vaguest of interest in politics is faced with encyclopedic reporting of each day’s action and counteraction. If you are an active observer of or participant in the Malaysian political scene, it is an endurance race without rest.

The spirit of democracy is truly alive. Currently in Parliament, all questions are scrutinised; every Minister’s answers are debated and then, debated again by all the stakeholders in the mass media and the cyberspace platform.
In an ideal world, the natural reaction of competitiveness is an improvement in quality. But the realities of today tell a different story.

Granted, there are some footnotes of positive change, but the Malaysian Parliament is slowly becoming a centre for political showboating – what with hard boiled eggs, bicycles and many more circus-like attractions.
In its defence, although embarrassing, it does not have substantive implications.

However, democracy is facing a far bigger ‘maturing’ challenge – one with substantive implications in the form of party hopping.

The attractiveness of the innuendos, guessing the characters involved, the stakes on the bargaining table… it all makes great kedai kopi or Starbucks material, depending on what’s your cuppa.

Perhaps, the collective function of this blinds us from the evil of this political play. Professor of Law at UiTM Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi has written that, in some countries, anyone who defects loses his seat but is allowed to return to the electorate at a by-election to regain his mandate. In other countries, a defector is barred from holding any remunerative political post for the remaining tenure of the legislature unless he is re-elected.

There have been innumerous views on the legality of party hopping from both sides of the divide.

However, my opinion is that even in the unfortunate and unthinkable event that legal authority allows it, our moral conscience should not.

More than this, it is a form of leadership contract between the candidate and the voters. Voters choose a candidate based on the candidate’s platform, his party’s manifesto. How many of us remember the name of the State assemblyman we voted for? My main grouse is that it is disheartening to see politicians who stand to benefit from the shift champion the cause; it is beyond belief to see people dressed under the veil of representatives of civil society defend the merits of this evil.

Given the current circumstances, how can civil society win? Call a spade, a spade. Don’t paint it as the voice of democracy in Malaysia.

Political strategies to destablise the government, such as party hopping, can serve no other purpose but personal agenda. The rakyat already lost precious amount of time with MPs showboating in Parliament and now we have to endure this unwarranted instability.

The only way I can describe the current situation is a siege on the sanctity and spirit of democracy. New York Times quoted a senior opposition leader as saying the results of the election is a result of an outcry for democratic reform. Let’s hope this is not the reform he means.