MAY 9 was supposed to be a day for Pakatan Harapan MPs, workers and supporters to celebrate the pact’s 2018 election victory.

However, the dramatic political conspiracy and scheming widely known now as the “Sheraton Move” took place at the end of February, to the bewilderment and disgust of the entire nation.

While the drama was orchestrated by the political elite, have civil society organisations and individuals reviewed their strategies and approaches with regard to what they achieved – or didn’t – during PH rule?

It is an understatement, to say the least, that the PH government disappointed many reform-minded supporters, with few achievements to show for, let alone the promised paradigm shift in policies, in its nearly two years in Putrajaya. Even the “good and widely praised” persons appointed to certain public offices face removal given the change of government. Institutional reform should be entrenched and permanent, unlike mere mortals in the hot seats.

What lessons can be learnt? Before the 14th general election, there were some civil society leaders who tactically threw their support behind PH and its choice of prime minister, whose track record is tainted with autocracy, cronyism, racism, abuse of state institutions and crackdowns on democratic demands for reform. And yet, some still harboured hope that he would change his spots under the PH banner. Overthrowing the Barisan Nasional government, and especially Najib Razak, became PH’s primary, if not sole, agenda.

For the organisations that had worked hard to realise their causes over the past 20 years, there was great temptation to see their reform efforts finally bear fruit. Instead of maintaining an independent stance, however, some decided to take the partisan line and campaigned for one side’s candidates. The sloganeering reached nauseating levels and the patriotism card was frequently flashed with claims to “save Malaysia” or “prevent the country from going bankrupt”. Some went as far as to reassure the people that PH was “not the same” as BN, and would “share power equally”. Most of all, it would “keep in check” the person at the helm.

Some civil society figures, among them former Bersih 2.0 chairman Maria Chin Abdullah, joined PH, and contested and won the elections. Others were happily “co-opted” into the system later. Hopes and expectations were high then.

Two years later, we know how the story goes. Those who might have misled the people during the GE14 campaign now have many excuses, but not a single apology. No promise or manifesto has been outlined by the Perikatan Nasional government, which has said its focus is fighting Covid-19. The hope for reform appears to have diminished, and we are back to square one.

Where should progressive, reform-minded civil groups go next? Should they still pin their hopes on one coalition, rising and falling with it?

It is activism gone wrong when such groups identify themselves more with those who hold power than the grassroots movements from which they derived their legitimacy. This happens when civil society leaders see themselves as the elite and believe that societal change can happen with back-room power brokering – the friendlier the party they get accustomed to, the higher the chance of success, or so they think.

I hope the bitter experience of the past two years will change their perspective, and for social movements to return to the basics: alerting, educating, inspiring and empowering the public as part of a participatory democracy built on universal values and principles.

Perhaps, there’s no better time than now to study social activism theorist Bill Moyer’s work on the Movement Action Plan, which clarifies the nature and dynamics of social movements, and provides a framework for organising and building them. He reminds us that a social activist has four roles, namely citizen, rebel, change agent and reformer, which varies according to a movement’s stages.

There are effective and ineffective ways to carry each role. For example, the ineffective “naive citizen” tends to have too much faith in power-holders and institutions serving the public’s interests over those of the elite. The “super-patriot”, meanwhile, is automatically obedient to power-holders in the name of the country. “Any means necessary”, as opposed to “means equal ends”, is a grave mistake that demands a heavy price. Giving tacit support to a suspicious leader is a good example; that’s a big gamble indeed.

Also, the self-identified leaders of certain issues may be too elitist, impeding the growth of social movements. Those who promote minor reform as a compromise, or allow for “co-optation”, are also ineffectively playing the role of change agent and/or reformer.

Maintaining the independence and integrity of civil groups is as crucial as keeping their core principles. Being part of social movements doesn’t mean one must always rebel. Equally, effective advocacy and lobbying doesn’t suggest a need to lean over and take a partisan line, or be co-opted. Regardless of how desperate or hopeless a situation seems, social movements should not take shortcuts.

I believe that a healthy and vibrant participatory democracy should reflect the “people power” structure: a strong, independent and principled civil society with an active citizenry that embraces universal values. This should serve as the backbone of our democracy.

Power-holders, even if derived from an electoral democracy, do not own absolute truth, and they are not our bosses. There’s no reason for civil society to bow to them. – May 11, 2020.

* 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.

* 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.