24

Crossing Over to a New Politics

‘Abiding Times’, theSun, 6 February 2009

THE riveting events of this week will form a permanent part of the continuing narrative of Malaysian political change. As the country awaits the judgement of His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak, the lawyers are beavering away through the laws and precedents to determine the possible outcomes, while the politicians await impatiently a decision they know could have serious nationwide repercussions. All are united in agreeing that much depends on the Head of State, and all are confident that the judgement of Perak’s 34th sultan, in the midst of celebrating his silver jubilee, will be in the long-term interests of his silver kingdom.

There are many actors at work in this thespian display, and many possible motives have been identified, on which most observers will by now have formed strong opinions. The desire for political parties to maintain power is an entirely natural phenomenon in democracies throughout the world, and so it is unsurprising that they will go to some length to ensure their legislators’ loyalty and to entice others to join them. There are many ways to accomplish this: some methods are undoubtedly more unscrupulous and deceitful than others, but what is certain is that in a free democracy, underhand tactics are likely to be punished by the electorate.

“The only ideal solution to abuse of power is to have principled politicians.”

The consequences of defection will fall most significantly on the defectors themselves. If their constituents feel that the defection of their representative was in their interests—for example, if the party’s policies deviated from manifesto pledges, or if there was too much bickering within that party for promises to be delivered—then defectors will be probably rewarded with increased majorities. But if their constituents feel defections occurred for the wrong reasons, then their political future will surely be forestalled. Of course, there might still be ways for politicians to work around this, or for them to retire from politics having abused power while in office. Thus the only ideal solution to such abuse is to have principled politicians. That is a situation that will take years of education and reform to cultivate: the profession of politician must first be seen as a desirable one for principled young Malaysians to aspire to, and they must be taught the importance of check and balance institutions (as indeed all Malaysians must) if they are to respect their boundaries and honour their oaths as legislators—oaths in which they promise to serve their apolitical Head of State and his people, and emphatically not a political party.

In the meantime, the defections of the week have vitalised those who insist that we need an anti-hopping law, something that I have argued against in the past. Such legislation may prevent what might be seen as unprincipled defections in the short term, but the long-term effects could be more damaging than the benefits. Apart from defying a previous ruling that freedom of association is a constitutional right, it would remove one of the very few weapons a backbencher has against the diktat of their party—and we have all seen how federal-level party machinery can be invoked to overrule the opinions of state or local politicians who are closer to the people. Voters will judge whether or not the weapon was wrongly invoked in Perak when the time comes, for unless and until we reform our electoral system to make it explicit that voters choose parties and not candidates, crossovers should remain an option.

Clearly it is destructive to democracy if a perception arises that the privilege of government can be bought, as is being alleged here. But judging by the angry reaction of the public to crossovers as a tactic to gain government, the encouragement of crossovers from the centre will be unsustainable, and ironically they may be a long-term benefit to this: if elected representatives want to switch sides in the future, they are going to have to justify it to their constituents extremely persuasively or risk incurring their wrath. In other words, they are going to have to win the argument before they can win the vote, and these arguments will increasingly centre on the quality of policy and delivery of services, as the notion of switching for the sake of power alone becomes an anathema.

The other possible benefit to this tumultuous chapter of Malaysian democracy is the strengthening of federalism. Both coalitions are fighting extremely hard for the state, and in order to keep Perakians happy each will have to demonstrate that they can perform profoundly better than the other. In order to do this, the state government, regardless of the party in power, may well demand more autonomy and freedom from Putrajaya.