THERE is a lot of chatter about the “green wave” from politicians on both sides of the political divide. 

Academics, too, are joining the debate. 

The most recent takes have argued that the term is an inaccurate description of the surge of Perikatan Nasional (PN) after the 15th general election, which also saw PAS becoming the largest party in parliament.

For me, the green wave is an interesting concept because it suffers from an identity crisis – a concept that does not know what it is. 

This is because the term caught popularity almost simultaneously in both (semi)-academic and political discourses. Hence, its diagnostic and rhetorical usage is conflated from the very beginning. 

The term’s origins were often attributed to Lim Kit Siang, but it appears to have come from a US-based scholar who specialises in Southeast Asia, Zachary Abuza, who employed the term earlier.

But their usage is only about a week apart, which means the term’s political and academic life grew almost concurrently. 

This also means, until the user can sort out the purpose of the term, we will never get clarity.

Academically speaking, I don’t think it is wrong to use the term to describe PAS’ gradual consolidation of its hold of the northern states (Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu) in the recent years, more so if you think Umno has no path to redemption in these regions. 

However, if the green wave means Malay-Muslim voters went to PAS in droves because of Islamism, then that is probably not true.

But to say Islam doesn’t matter is untrue as well. Suppose there is this virus that will kill off anyone who campaigns using religion, would PN still gain as many votes? I doubt so. 

This complexity is why many scholars who are into the more materialist view of politics (people voting mainly for material self-interests) are rather sceptical of the term. They simply do not know how to quantify religion and insert it into their calculus.

Ideology can’t account for everything in politics. But, like it or not, without ideology, there is no politics.

Green wave – yes or no?

Aside from the lack of definitional consensus (for instance, is the green wave meant to signify the pertinence of PAS or Islam in Malaysian politics, which are separate questions), any attempt to parse with the term “green wave” objectively is muddled by its political usage. 

PN is the most interesting to watch because a doubleness runs deep in its deployment of the term.

On one hand, PN and its sympathisers want the green wave to be true to create the impression that more and more Malays will vote for PN. The green wave means the odds are in their favour. 

Maintaining this impression puts the unity government under siege and forces paralysis of what is already a somewhat conflicted government.

If the green wave is true, it also means Pakatan Harapan (PH) must think twice before acting on divisive and populist figures like Abdul Hadi Awang or Caretaker Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor because they may risk a backlash. 

On the other hand, PN also wants the green wave (if the term means the successful exploitation of religious sentiments for electoral gains) to be untrue, so they can reassure their supporters and external observers that the ideological worldview they promote is not deeply problematic.

Hence, their supporters lean towards saying the political movement they create is based on (material) discontent and not ideological-motivated hatred.

At times, PN politicians even claim that using the term “green wave” is Islamophobic, hence effectively silencing the legitimate fears of minorities towards PN’s exclusivist form of politics.

PH, on one hand, wish the “green wave” to be false because the simple truth is, there is no way Umno can “out-Islamise” PAS.

See what Umno has done for the past 40 years and where it has gotten them now. 

If more Islamism is the only way PH and Umno can claw back the Malay votes, they are doomed.

On the other hand, those who wish for higher non-Muslim turnout would want the “green wave” to be true so that the non-Muslims feel compelled to vote in the state elections.

Words are political

The green wave debate reminds me of another term, Salafi-jihadism, which, due to its entanglement with the war on terror, also has a double meaning even if it is more canonised in the academic literature than the “green wave”.

On one hand, it is just an academic term to say groups like the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda share the same hermeneutical tradition as the Salafis.

On the other hand, it also implies Salafist understanding of Islam causes violent extremism. Empirically, the picture is more complicated than that.

Hence, if people ask me about the term, even if my primary motivation is still to address the question with objectivity and integrity, I can’t avoid the politics that comes with it. 

How I answer the question depends on my reading on whether the interested party is aiming for an accurate diagnosis, or simply to blame the Salafis, or absolve them from all blame, including legitimate ones.

Similarly, before engaging in hot-headed debates about whether there is a green wave, consider asking this: what does it mean, and who wants it to be true or untrue?

Why the absurd virus scenario? Because if the government officially bans the use of religion in political campaigns, then Muslim voters will vote PN out of spite. That will be more of a protest vote instead of a “vote for Islam”. – July 8, 2023.

* 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.