PRIOR to the 2008 elections, Malaysian political lines were clearer than they are now. 

Remnant issues from our colonial masters, and race and religion were allowed to dominate the political scene, with allegiances to race or religion syncretised into an “ideology” of sorts – preservation of the delicate social fabric and the “fair” distribution of wealth became the political raison d’ etre, rather than philosophical arguments like Marxism or Liberalism. 

The uneven distribution of wealth and development between the races, and the simplicity of segmented representation made it an appealing idea.

It would make power-sharing simpler too, with allocations for key positions, giving each race or religion their own prominence.

Even parties like DAP, popularised out of the labour movement, or PSM – the name embodies socialism – needed to frame their ideological personalities into this mould, purposely or otherwise. 

For example, instead of demonstrating race should not matter, DAP emphasises inclusivity, highlighting increasing Malay-Muslim and Bornean membership.

PSM showcases its work with the marginalised, which is more easily palatable than the idea of nationalising profitable corporations, which the average voter may not understand or is able to accept. 

The arrival of Muda brought youth from the side-lines to the forefront of the political discussion, with other parties jostling to reassert their youth wing’s relative dominance, pushing the older members to take a back seat and let the young realign our politics. 

It is an idea many can get behind, yet some find it too bold. 

All these points may have their charms, but they are divisive in nature, as alliances along these lines are bound to split due to the pulling force of their own parties’ nature and need to play to the gallery. 

If Malay politics has taught us anything, it is that even if all parties serve a single demographic combined force, the desire to dominate would eventually drive them apart.  

The problem could be that everyone is trying to emulate Barisan Nasional’s arrangement, simply because it worked.

However, it may not work again, necessarily – demographics are changing and people have immediate problems that need solutions, and are keener on that, rather than stable alliances that last forever.  

Perhaps the answer lies in our current state of flux and how this present MOU-driven political arrangement seems to be holding stronger than its two ideological-driven predecessors, despite the state of uncertainty. 

Having identifiable goals would keep politicians fixed on working on those cohesively, rather than coming together to seize power and come apart in a year after a disagreement on who should be boss. 

The “who” seems to be more important than the “why”. 

Instead, if Pakatan Harapan or anyone could come up with a five-year plan on strengthening the ringgit and economy, creating jobs, increasing our global competitiveness and improve our education, that should actually provide us with clues on getting out of this mess. 

These ideas need not be fleshed out in great detail – parts of it could even be kept secret as part of these parties’ political strategy and only known to each other – but it should cover fundamental ways of running a country, how resources should be spent, how much taxes should be levied and so on, and sufficient information should be divulged to the electorate to make an informed decision. 

Civil society groups could push for this in the similar vein of Deklarasi Rakyat, and the emphasis on a results-oriented partnership as opposed to a political blood pact could be what we need to bring this country out of the murky loop we have been in for a while now. – September 28, 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.