FIGHTING for a social cause until the desired change in policy is achieved is never straightforward or easy. It could take years or decades, or not happen at all.

We live in an electoral democracy, where voices can be diverse, competitive and sometimes conflicting.

Sometimes, the loudest voices can come from a small group of lobbyists, and these can be influential in persuading lawmakers and their political parties, although this phenomenon is an anti-democratic practice.

There are social movements that go in the opposite direction and may seem more popular and influential than others.

It would be naive to assume a social movement can achieve its goal simply by talking to or presenting its research and point of view to those in power (ministers, deputies, MPs, top civil servants, party leaders) without growing the movement to gain more support.

However, to determine the success of a social movement, we must look at how far the movement has come in achieving its desired changes in policy, and whether its approaches and strategies are effective in bringing it closer to its objectives.

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.

Fann’s 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 lead to political reforms.

His rejection of his new deputy’s vision of a “people’s movement” may explain why Bersih has not called for street protests after the first change of government to Pakatan Harapan (PH) and after the so-called unity government was formed, despite the apparent failure of successive PH-led governments to do enough or, sometimes, not even want to implement the reforms they once promised.

While the intention may be to keep connections and internal channels open, loud protests may appear to undermine the efforts of these advocates or jeopardise their 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 PH government, it is not fair to say there has been no progress or gains in terms of policy changes through Bersih’s advocacy (e.g. automatic voter registration, postal voting, cleaning up electoral rolls), but there is too little to show for it, which has frustrated activists and the general public who still yearn for institutional reforms.

Some reform proposals may be familiar to federal and state ministers who come from activist backgrounds and understand the issues.

But when the position changed from opposition member or activist to power-holder in government, politicians have different concerns around their parties’ self-preservation and self-interests, 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 of the electorate, and a public image of poor performance and lack of political will could work against them at the next election, threatening the security of their position.

If open street protests would help the cause, build the movement’s momentum, and educate and expand the popular support base, a serious activist must not dismiss the importance of such multi-pronged strategies.

The emergence and victory of Wong Yan Ke’s team members, who were elected to the Bersih steering committee, should reflect the internal voices of member groups 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, Wong and newly 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 the experienced midfielders, defenders and goalkeepers should be benched.

Although I can understand and respect this, I am still disappointed the captain does not want to continue to lead the new team with added strength, but perhaps he does not see it that way. – December 11, 2023.

* Lim Chee Han is a founding member of Agora Society and a policy researcher. He holds a PhD in infection biology from Hannover Medical School, Germany, and an MSc in immunology and BSc in biotechnology from Imperial College London. Health and socioeconomic policies are his concerns. He believes a nation can advance significantly if policymaking and research are taken seriously.