LETTER | Rooting for checks and balances through PSM-Muda

LETTER | “The checks and balances is a way to prevent [the] government from either devolving into an autocratic tyranny or an autocratic mob mentality.”

- Beau Willimon, an American playwright

Yesterday, BFM hosted an interesting segment that discussed the probable classification of voters in Malaysia, with critical insights from political scientist Wong Chin Huat, and why it matters.

Though light-hearted, the sharings imparted the necessity to re-examine our voting preferences, whether our alignment is based on our loyalty to a political party, charismatic leaders, the ideology of these parties, the cause, personal upbringing, or a spur of the moment.

On Aug 12, the fate of six states may be sealed for another five years. Probably one of the most intriguing election climates in recent times, given the lingering uncertainty surrounding the potential state governments.

While the unity government, for the first time, fields their respective Pakatan Harapan and BN candidates as a joint force, the major opposition coalition Perikatan Nasional uses ethnoreligious rhetoric to rally the support of voters eager to find an alternative to Umno/BN.

PN has also fielded non-bumiputera candidates, which many view as a token effort to counter the racial slant the party has taken in building its support base.

As interesting as it gets, the politics of these major political coalitions are predominantly warped toward inducing fear, with possible repercussions if either faction comes to power.

Therefore, their narrative, even before the designated campaigning period begins, has shaped a national discourse in the public sphere about how terrifying it would be if one or the other assumed power. Except for a few candidates scattered throughout the country, this tide primarily erodes local issues.

Amidst these major coalitions’ tussle to assume power and show their might, relatively minor and newer political parties have arrived to form their understanding pact, as in the case of PSM and Muda, courting excitement, engagements, and as expected, some backlashes.

Sociopolitical contingencies and developments necessitate a credible force to be the checks and balances at the state government level. Nonetheless, competing against well-resourced political coalitions and in a first-past-the-post voting system is a major drawback because the playing field is not level.

Would the unity government, which has its roots in reformasi, level the playing field to foster a healthier democracy where parties with financial support alone do not dominate the political space during elections? Time shall tell. Or will a credible opposition take the government in power to task?

Why do we need checks and balances?

Both political coalitions have been in power, either at the state or federal level, for no less than one term (five years), which brings us to the point that they are neither new, inexperienced, nor politically incapable.

However, at certain times, the political will to move towards collective progress for a better, inclusive, and progressive Malaysia appears questionable.

Many may have felt that the federal government, which is only seven months old, has to undo the turmoil and damage of the past 60 years perpetrated by various leaders in the Umno/BN coalition.

I concur with the rationale, despite the shortcuts taken by Harapan to come into power in 2018 and 2022. While the latter was convincing due to the practical complications, the former was a choice that could have been avoided. Yes, I meant the inclusion of former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad in Harapan.

Nevertheless, the delayed state elections of some that didn’t transpire simultaneously with the general election can be a positive opportunity for the voters to assess the performance of the newly elected federal government as much as the state government.

While we observe the rise of ethnoreligious politics with fascist tendencies amongst PN members in their political campaigns, we foresee a hazy future for those who oppose divisive politics and support an inclusive Malaysia.

Instead of focusing on the reforms they have been eager to pursue with the powers at their disposal, Harapan leaders are rushing into regressive measures in a desperate attempt to woo the conservative bloc.

Although they perform marginally better than alternatives, there are still questions about how well they will resonate with the public. The survey conducted by Ilham Centre confirms the prime minister's (also to be interpreted as Harapan’s) declining popularity, particularly among Malays.

The nomination of Najwan Halimi in Kota Anggerik despite his racist remarks, the continued use of repressive laws such as the Sedition Act and Printing Presses and Publication Act, the banning of Swatch watches, the early retirement of the lead prosecutor in Zahid Hamidi's Yayasan Akalbudi corruption case, and a few other factors cause discontent, mistrust, and political fatigue amongst the once loyal voter base of Harapan.

I wonder how those on the fence may perceive this. Would undecided voters be troubled by the fact that Harapan’s stance shifts as long as it remains in power, or would they perceive the current compromises as a strategy to lose the battles before winning the war?

What I might point out is that PN could never function as a reliable watchdog in the halls of power where laws and regulations are drafted. Not only did their most intellectual representative in the debate get snuffed out by Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli, but the group as a whole is wildly disconnected from the concerns and needs of the general populace.

As a result, I think that policy discussions are not their "cup of tea," so they instead choose to mask these flaws with racial and religious rhetoric.

Thus, these state elections are timely and, to some effect - crucial. It is because the Malaysian democratic process is often limited, or narrowly interpreted, to voting that it obscures other forms of democratic participation by the masses and institutions as watchdogs of democracy.

Or they are confined to academic and intellectual discourses that fail to resonate with the population, hence being concentrated within urban areas and the elites.

This comes as no surprise, as political conscience can pose serious threats because conscientious masses will reserve their political support on a conditional basis rather than dogmatic adulation.

How do we choose a credible force?

The public must take an active role in identifying whether the incoming legislators are all members of the same party, whose ideology and worldview could be extremely harmful to social harmony, positive change, and citizen participation in government.

Analysing the manifesto is probably a good start. I may also suggest that you conduct a simple Google search to identify the candidates in your constituency.

Examine the candidate's work with and for the community, as well as their declared wealth if it has been declared. If not, candidates should be compelled to do so, as elected officials are responsible to the public.

We do not want to endure another 60 years of mass deception and unchecked wealth accumulation through projects and developments that harm people and the environment.

Politics is not a domain for the elected candidates to enrich themselves monetarily; it is a service where progressive and inclusive policies are formulated through open dialogues with the public that would serve all despite race, creed, or religion.

When issues that are central to the daily lives of the people gain prominence in political discourse, Malaysia may transform. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to organise a vigilant and critical civil society comprised of the masses to play the watchdog role.

While civil society and the public can serve as watchdogs from outside the assembly, we must send those with a track record of having the people's best interests at heart to represent the 99 percent of people outside.

Long-delayed pertinent issues such as affordable housing, local government elections, lack of democratic participation, environmental hazards, the inadequate social system that supports the common worker, and more result from the unchecked and arbitrary nature of the uncontested majority at the place of decision-making.

Or the opposing party does not know or lacks political will. In light of this, let us take a stand to be just as responsible for our future as these politicians and ensure they do not enjoy an uncontested majority representing a single party in the bloc.

I am optimistic that Selangor will benefit from the progressive track record of the PSM and its straightforward manifesto, which was developed through its engagement with the community it seeks to represent.

For example, its Majlis Perundingan Rakyat (People's Council, or MPR) is one example of how MPR empowers people to have a larger say in determining our future.

On the other hand, Muda’s aspiration to create a new Malaysia is a promising beginning that will aid in installing these essential forces of check and balance.

Thus, electing a credible opposition is safe and serves the best interests of the general public.

The writer is a researcher and secretary for PSM.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.