ONE of the greatest pleas in Malaysian politics these days is that we should shift from just talking about race and religion, or mega-scandals, to talking about bread and butter issues.

It does not take a genius to figure why is there such a call considering the surging inflation and dire financial state many Malaysians find themselves in.

Survey results have found that living costs and the economy are indeed the major concern of Malaysians, although I suspect this is nothing new.

But the centrality of such issues is bound to be more prominent during a weak economy, and with an election looming, it seems that the addressing of bread and butter issues (or lack thereof) can spell doom for both the ruling government and the opposition (mainly speaking about Pakatan Harapan (PH) here since I don’t have a clear grasp of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)’s allegiances anymore).

So, the glaring question remains, if all evidence points to bread and butter issues being important in courting Malaysian voters, why haven’t it been brought up enough?

Different incentives

The incumbent cannot be seen propagating a narrative that ‘all is not well’ because the oversized presence of the state in the economy means that people will blame it for the state of the economy, even if economic slowdowns mostly combine both internal and external factors.

If the ruling party keeps on harping on what it can do better to improve the economy people are bound to ask, why haven’t it been done already?

That is why as I have written earlier, incumbents tend to focus on the politics of ‘future’ when current conditions are less than favourable, while at the same time try to defend progress made under the status quo, using macroeconomic figures and validation from external bodies.

The opposition, naturally, has an incentive to attack the government for mismanaging the economy. While some have expressed concern that the opposition has bank too much on a moral campaign centering around 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and kleptokrasi instead of addressing the living cost problem, some efforts can be seen to link both issues together.

In all fairness, it is not that the opposition (or more specifically, the now defunct Pakatan Rakyat) has not addressed policy questions about living cost issues.

The Orang Book (Buku Jingga) released in 2010 outlines the policy positions to be taken by the opposition, with many having ‘bread and butter’ implications, such as abolishing tolls and giving free tertiary education.

As Rafizi Ramli, understood to be one of the major architects of the Orang Book, openly called for PH to pivot back to addressing bread and butter issues, there is a likelihood that a policy-grounded strategy might have been ditched – if so, prematurely I would argue – as a collateral of the 13^th General Election.

Stakeholders still think that voters respond best to primordial identity politics (which was the conclusion drawn by some in UMNO and even PAS before their shift back to more parochial forms of politics).

Nevertheless, the factionalism and shifting sands that plagued opposition politics today—not unexpected for a rather young coalition—could have also detracted them from getting a workable manifesto together.

Two structural impediments

Some structural impediment also stands in the way for political parties to make their policy positions on bread and butter issues clear.

First, Malaysian politics operate on a big-tent basis rather than having any clear ideological divides, unlike the case in other First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom where positions on the state and the economy denominated the differences between let’s say the Democratic and the Republican Party, or Labour and the Conservative party.

The only notable difference between Barisan Nasional and PH is the power balance between component parties, with the former having UMNO in a disproportionately powerful position while the latter enjoy a more equal, hence at times difficult, partnership.

Yet, the result of practising big tent (yet strangely still identity-laden) politics is that when it comes to socio-economic policies, either side would not have any qualms in adopting the policy position of the other, resulting in at times a populist contest between the two.

Dr Mahathir, now the chairman of PH, even pointed out he will not release a manifesto so fast lest it gets stolen by BN.

In such a setting, the disadvantage for the opposition is that, if they are not bold enough to imagine, define and when the opportunity arises, execute policy ideas that are different from the incumbent, they risk being seen as no different from the incumbent.

Second, the lack of de-centralisation also results in a ‘high stakes’ election scenario. What I mean by this is that those who win power at the federal level gets to control a major portion of administrative domains and resources, with less autonomy and resources given to state and lesser to local governments.

After all, the federal government raises and spends some 90% of all public spending, with the remaining 13 state government sharing the 10%. This is further exacerbated by the fact that besides Sarawak, all state and federal seats are up for contest at the same time.

Hence, contending parties, by virtue of their interest in attaining federal power, focus much more on national issues with ‘big tent’ manifestos that try to address every issue in the nation, all at once.

This runs against the complexity and disparities within Malaysia, where the economic pressures faced by a middle-class Kuala Lumpur resident is worlds apart from a person staying in rural, inland Sarawak.

The lack of local elections also impede targeted, granular policy discourse being made at the local level, even if issues controlled by local governments such as licensing and permits, urban and rural planning, and public amenities up-keeping do have a significant impact on livability and livelihood (your bread and butter).

Another elephant in the room?

When all is said and done, there’s still an incredibly simple answer to the question we have been grappling above: elite disconnection with the masses.

From the cakes of Marie Antoinette to modern day gaffes (such as here and here), governments claimed to be ‘by the people’ tend to have this habit of living further and further apart from the people, not surprising if a system is defined by searing inequalities.

Worse, access by special interests to the corridors of power also risks policy planning being outsourced and abused as rent-seeking opportunities, often with little regard to the welfare of the common people.

These questions should be enough for us to break bread over in celebration of a titillating SEA games, not to mention the upcoming National Day. – August 30, 2017.

* A Forensic Science-Asian Studies hybrid, Nicholas Chan is interested in how authority is shaped, exercised, and more importantly, resisted in Southeast Asia.

* 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.