PROPONENTS of a unity government believe that what this country desperately needs at this juncture is a broad-coalition government, but they forget that Malaysia is no stranger to to the concept in that Barisan Nasional (BN) was formed as a call for unity to overcome a national crisis.

While BN is historically touted as the direct successor to the Alliance coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC, the true motive of the grand coalition was to pave the way for its government to circumvent noisy democratic politics in the aftermath of the May 13 riots.

1969 was the first time the Alliance government suffered an electoral setback, which was due to the strong performance of PAS and DAP and the rise of Gerakan in Penang.

The governing coalition did not just lose its two-thirds majority; it also dawned on its leaders that their legitimacy to govern was being challenged. Founding father-cum-prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman was made the scapegoat and unfairly blamed for the racial riots.

Tunku’s successor, Abdul Razak Hussein, was ushered in with the specific aim of stabilising the country, both economically and politically, that had suffered from racial inequality and tension.

Soon after, Razak proceeded to set up a grand coalition in 1973 purportedly for political stability. The olive branch was extended to all established political parties in the name of unity, and all of them save DAP heeded Razak’s call.

Razak’s BN proved to be a masterstroke as his coalition – having absorbed virtually every political actor into the fold – won the desired two-thirds majority which it was not to lose until the so-called election “tsunami” of 2008.

The problem with a broad-coalition government, which encompasses both the government and opposition, is that it often weakens the system of checks and balances in a democracy.

The opposition exists in a parliamentary democracy as the alternative government-in-waiting and to hold the sitting one accountable, even in times of crisis.

Defenestration of the opposition for co-optation by the ruling coalition leaves a political vacuum whereby constituents lack a viable alternative to the sitting administration, regardless how poorly the latter performs.

In such a situation, election results are mostly a foregone conclusion, making a change of government highly unlikely. This was why BN was electorally successful in the past. 

The absence of scrutiny and accountability in a permanent broad-coalition government also gives the government unchecked powers, and this leads to abuse.

The use of draconian laws, such as the Internal Security Act during 1987 Operasi Lalang crackdown, and executive overreach in the judicial crisis the following year were possible because the government’s power at the time was unchecked and out of balance. 

Also, the argument that a unity government produces political stability deserves much more scrutiny.

After three years of inclusion, PAS was unceremoniously expelled from BN by Umno and subsequently swept out of power from its Kelantan stronghold.

Similarly, the political upheaval within Umno in the late 1980s and 1990s, which were politically damaging to BN, stemmed from internal fighting within Umno.

The notion of unity government is to supposedly reduce or remove politics out of the political arena, thus allowing the “adult” or “sensible” statesman to lead the country out of whatever crisis he thinks the nation is going through.

The reality is that contestation of power and positions still happens within a coalition and it is hidden under a veneer of the call for unity.

Lest we forget, one of the reasons for the rise of the Perikatan Nasional government led by Muhyiddin is the supposed unification of the various Malay parties for the protection of the political and economic interests of the Malays.

Yet ironically, the political bickering of Malay parties Umno and Bersatu is an open secret. They could not even agree on Budget 2021 in parliament, and failure of its passage will spell the end of Muhyiddin’s premiership.

This week, talk of a unity government was again brought up by former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and for similar reasons. Aside from citing the example of Abdul Razak’s BN, Mahathir also mentioned the example of the UK coalition government with Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee in partnership from 1940 to 1945.

The comparison with the Churchill’s coalition government is a false comparison because Malaysia, though embattled by the Covid-19, is not currently facing an invasion, nor are we preparing a war against a foreign country.

Additionally, the Churchill’s coalition government was formed with a specific purpose to combat against the Nazi during the World War 2. True to his words, Churchill immediately dissolved the war cabinet after the war ended and subsequently called for a general election.

Any unity government with no specific purpose would only risk rolling back democracy just like what the BN coalition had done. What’s more, Mahathir’s purpose for a unity government is only to reduce politicking in a time of pandemic. 

The problem with Mahathir’s unity government is not with the concept of unity itself but that his government will be anything but united.

When Mahathir mooted the idea in February, he had wanted a unity government in name only and would likely accord himself absolute executive power like that he wielded when he was a BN prime minister

There is no doubt that the sitting government has underperformed in reviving the economy and preventing the spread of Covid-19. But that does not justify a call for political unity with the result of suspending politics during these times.

It is clear that the shout of politics of unity from certain politicians is more often a ploy to preserve or expand their political power.

In fact, there should be more politics of scrutiny from the opposition and politics of consensus from the government if Muhyiddin sincerely fears that the coming budget vote might suffer a historic defeat. And all this is possible if the lawmakers of this country truly have the nation’s interest at heart.

Let’s have more politics of scrutiny and consensus, but not unity for the sake of unity. – November 22, 2020.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.