Is ‘political stability’ good for democracy?


Emmanuel Joseph

Torn between three coalitions with no clear advantage, corporate donors could well hedge their bets in this general election, spreading the money around. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Seth Akmal, November 9, 2022.

AT least two coalitions, Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional, have “stability” at the crux of their campaign.  

The general argument is that political stability offers familiarity, which in turn guarantees predictability, and with it progress that bodes well for everything from the economy to creation of jobs, generation of wealth, inter-communal ties and so on. 

Political stability is touted as the solution for all our woes.  

Ironically, even reform.

Yet is it really political stability that these parties are after, or it is simply a euphemism for their dominance over the political landscape? 

Arguably, the latter.  

Post-2018, we have already achieved political stability, at varying levels, multiple times. After taking power, Dr Mahathir Mohamad solidified PH and its allies’ position to one that was unassailable.  

It took considerable effort to undo this. Indeed, it took 33 MPs crossing over, or 14% of parliament, to collapse Mahathir’s government.

The two subsequent governments, led by Bersatu and Umno, respectively, only needed 15 defections, and just a few Umno leaders declaring it, for each to collapse.  

This isn’t even considering the MOU signed between the government and the opposition, further cementing the “stability”. 

Was it Malay-Muslim dominance then?

Again, the facts do not support this. Umno-PAS-Bersatu, the dream unity of the majority of Malay and Islamic civil society groups, collapsed before they got off the ground, split into two coalitions.  

Now, with the parties conceding they may not be able to form majorities independently, we could be looking at a return to square one, or a failure to achieve political “stability”. 

However, this “instability”, real or perceived, has more than a few positive effects.  

For starters, a more level playing field. 

Unlike previous elections, where BN typically had the lion’s share of political donations and corporate sponsorships, this time around, the distribution seems much fairer. 

This could be because unlike in previous elections, every coalition vying to form this new government, can claim to have ruled the country. 

Every coalition also cannot claim to have clear voter support.  

Hence, donors hedging their support will also need to spread their bets. 

Similarly, corporate donations would also be split, as corporations realise that first, the supported party may not win, and second, the other party who does win, may hold a grudge for support rendered to a rival party. 

Without excess cash, parties are forced to focus on the actual core messaging, rather than indulge in gimmicks and fanfare to generate interest and gather crowds. 

Having a sphere of influence also enables parties to keep tabs on each other. Having been in government, many party leaders would now have inroads in government and GLC infrastructure and would be able to call out misuse.

Insiders in the government and GLCs themselves would be wary of blind support for fear of an indeterminate outcome. 

Similarly, agencies enforcing elections laws too, would find it difficult to express any bias. 

Political leverage also allows parties to express their ideas with less fear of repercussions, or political persecution.

Apart from allowing the electorate to truly evaluate the principles of those seeking their vote, it increases the quality of debate. 

Speaking of debate, airtime and media coverage would also be more evenly spread, as the media would truly need to be seen as neutral, to maintain good relations with all potential parties that may form the next administration. 

This uncertainty that inhibits “choosing a side” and influencing voters spills over if a government with simple majority is formed.

There are ample examples inside and outside the country, such as the government of Kelantan in 2004, or routine governments in the United Kingdom with no overwhelming majority. 

The idea of needing a large margin of victory is not feasible, nor is it really beneficial to the administration, as demonstrated by the Sheraton Move. – November 9, 2022.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.


Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments