THE blue flags emblazoned with the scales of justice hang limply in the humid air. Speeding cars drive by ragged remnants of blue banners and flags strewn by the roadside – relics of the watershed Malaysian election on May 9, 2018.

Many analysts, including me, were blind-sided by what happened. There were telltale signs but…

For example, as much as a third of Malaysians refused to disclose their choices to pollsters and politicians alike, preferring to say they were “undecided”. This was evident in the many polls produced by various organisations leading to election day. 

The truth is, voting for the opposition, particularly among Malay voters, was something one did not speak about openly, for fear of losing practical benefits, privileges or even friendships. This can be explained by the “spiral of silence theory”, which speaks of the tendency of people to not openly express views or opinions they felt were divergent from the community they belonged to. 

Now in the wake of May 9, we are left to figure out what went through the minds of millions of voters that day. We have to rely on existing research, countries with similar political contexts, as well as analysing the raw results from the election. 

Detailed data that would shed light on how Malaysians decided may not be available for many more weeks, yet ample information already exists that can shed light on the silent revolution that ended Barisan Nasional’s hold on power.

Some have postulated the outcome of the election on one or two critical factors, citing public backlash over the goods and services tax or the 1Malaysia Development Bhd scandal. But that alone does not explain the near perfect storm that terminated Barisan Nasional’s hold on power. 

While reform hungry Malaysians and supporters of Pakatan Harapan were right to celebrate their years of toil upon reaching victory, this journey resembles that of other peoples that have toppled decades of dominant political parties, such as the People’s Revolutionary Institution in Mexico, the Grand National Party in South Korea, the Kuomintang in Taiwan and Golkar in Indonesia. 

There are at least six critical factors that led to the result, many which we took for granted.

The first three were embedded in our political system – regular elections conducted here since 1955 that served as a source of a mandate and validation of the party holding power, Alliance then Barisan Nasional, since independence. This periodic events, though flawed and unfair to the then opposition, became part of a national political culture. 

Second was the continuous presence of opposition parties. 

Third was the pragmatism among the opposition parties to cooperate to maximise votes – an uphill task in Malaysia’s heavily gerrymandered, first-past-the-post system. 

Coalitions or electoral pacts among opposition parties had been a feature in our elections since 1964, when the Socialist Front was formed to challenge the then Alliance or the unnamed electoral pact among nearly all of the opposition parties that took two states from the Alliance, as well as garnering nearly one-half of the popular vote, in 1969. 

Yet it took a fourth factor – the consistent pressure for election reform that achieved the first breakthrough in 2008. 

Tentative efforts to bring the Election Commission to task, by the Bersih coalition of civil society organisations and its allies in the opposition, were met with popular support. 

They were successful organising large rallies – the first in late 2007 – to demand more transparency in the conduct of elections.

These initial steps delivered modest improvements – transparent plexiglass ballot boxes and the counting of ballot papers at the polling room (rather than being transported to a centralised counting centre) and, eventually, in 2013, the use of indelible ink to prevent repeat voting.  

Groups such as Bersih, and independent media organisations served as a critical force in awakening ordinary Malaysians to the power of the vote, which, when coupled with technology and knowledge, connected people with one another in a manner that left them invested in the political process.

For many Malaysians, it no longer was  just another election, but a sacred ritual to determine the path to be taken by the nation. 

Achieving the tipping point – the leadership factor

In Mexico, it was Vicente Fox; in the former Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel; in the case of Malaysia, it needed not one but two charismatic leaders to cement a coalition that was strong enough to challenge the dominant ruling party.

Both led splinter groups that left Barisan Nasional to form new parties that cooperated with existing political parties. In 1999, the then jailed Anwar Ibrahim formed a pact that eventually broke the Barisan Nasional’s two-thirds supermajority. It needed another splintering of the ruling party before the final blow could be delivered. 

Former premier and strongman Dr Mahathir Mohamad quit Umno in February 2016 and formed a new party later in the same year, joining the Pakatan Harapan coalition. 

The fifth factor was a slew of critical issues that caused widespread dissatisfaction with Barisan Nasional – the removal of subsidies in late 2013, the introduction of GST in April 2015, and finally, the sordid details emerging from the 1MDB scandal. All of which took place when a large majority of Malaysians felt squeezed between stagnant wages and rising costs. 

These issues had impacted support for BN since late 2013, but the then opposition was unable to make headway among more conservative, BN-leaning voters, as seen in the 2016 Sarawak elections and two by-elections in Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar in the same year. 

Our data from mid-2015 showed that BN was recovering some ground lost in 2013.

But the game changer for the opposition was when its populist promises and attacks on BN’s failings started being articulated by a former prime minister.

This was particularly true among the Malay swing voters – a crucial group if the opposition was going to win GE14.

Seen in this context, the data suggests that Dr Mahathir’s leadership factor was critical in lending legitimacy to solutions to the country’s woes offered by Pakatan Harapan.

Barisan Nasional and Najib Razak’s problems began when Dr Mahathir began framing his criticism of the status quo in the typical straight-talking fashion he is well known for. 

Eschewing complex vocabulary, Dr Mahathir called Najib a “thief” rather than a kleptocrat. More critically, Dr Mahathir helped ordinary, conservative and nationalistic oriented Malay-Muslim voters overcome their fear of voting for the opposition.

To compound matters for himself, Najib resorted to ridiculing his opponent for being in politics again at the age of 92. This generated more sympathy for Dr Mahathir rather than diminish his appeal. 

Our survey data from the days leading to the election showed that a significant number of Malay voters began to set aside the importance they held for the “preservation of Malay rights” and moved towards choosing “having a competent national leadership” during the course of the 11-day election campaign. 

This is significant because it meant Barisan Nasional’s primary appeal to its core Malay base was eroded.

In our view, this was the crucial factor that enabled PH to achieve a tipping point among Malay voters – their trust in Dr Mahathir’s leadership.

Finally, the outcome would not be complete if not for a few last minute own goals by Barisan Nasional that enraged the voting public, all of which took place in weeks and days leading to election day.

This included the gerrymandering of seats, a law on fake news, the Registrar of Societies’ disbanding of Dr Mahathir’s party, calling a mid-week election day ostensibly to depress voter turnout, and promising tax relief for young voters and increase in cash handouts – all probably pushed undecided voters to the brink and brought them out in droves early in the day. 

One self-inflicted factor, however, deserves special mention – James Masing’s dismissal of several senior Parti Rakyat Sarawak leaders in late April this year created a voter revolt in the Bidayuh and Iban areas within lower Sarawak.

This and other internal problems  delivered eight unanticipated parliamentary seats to Pakatan Harapan, thus allowing for the coalition to have a sizable enough majority to form a stable federal government along with representation from both sides of the Natuna Sea. 

May 9, 2018, was the culmination of the efforts of many groups and individuals. They deserve to be called patriots because they made great sacrifices and suffered much hardship.

Winning the battle over Barisan Nasional was one challenge; my hope is that this victory will translate into meaningful, sustainable, systemic reforms that mark the beginning of a democratic and inclusive political order, one that unleashes the true potential of Malaysia – its diverse talent and cultural capital. – June 4, 2018.

* Ibrahim Suffian is the programmes director of Merdeka Centre. 

* 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.