When the first general election was held in 1955 and followed by 13 more, most political analysts were of the opinion that the Malaysian electoral system greatly favoured the government at the expense of the opposition, and that a regime change was just a pipe dream.
There was also a consensus among political pundits that Barisan Nasional’s (BN) continued success at the polls was attributed to its ability to control the 3Ms – money, media, and machinery.
As a one-party dominant state, Malaysia had all the trappings of a democracy on paper, but when it comes to practice, many civil and political liberties were curtailed in favour of political stability and economic development.
What differentiates Malaysia’s semi-democracy from other authoritarian regimes is the fact that Malaysian elections have not been characterised by widespread fraudulent practices, such as ballot box stuffing or blatant physical pressure on voters; and political parties of all stripes, except for the Communist Party, were allowed to take part in the elections.
In other words, Malaysia’s election was free but not necessarily fair, with the government giving limited time to opposition parties to campaign on television or radio. Malaysia’s half-way house democracy, however, made a successful democratic transition in 2018 when BN lost in GE14.
While most analysts are quick to point out that GE14 was a watershed election in Malaysia’s electoral history, the role of the Reformasi movement in 1998, in the opening of civil and political space, must not be understated.
The sacking and jailing of former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in September of 1998 unleashed a fury of opposition against the government. The Reformasi movement and the advent of social media would eventually weaken BN’s grip on the political system.
Put in another way, BN’s incumbency advantage, and its command of the 3Ms are no longer seen as a stumbling block for the opposition to take control of the government.
In GE15, the Election Commission (EC) approved 945 nominations for 222 parliamentary seats, and 434 for state seats. Six candidates were rejected.
GE15 is by far the most crowded general election in Malaysia’s electoral history, with most constituencies witnessing a multi-cornered fight.
Democracy, it seems, is alive and kicking in Malaysia.
Just like the previous elections, BN was always able to make promises to the voters, and the opposition would try to match, if not up, the ante. All in all, election season is a time when political parties would parade what they had done, and what they would do, if elected.
It goes without saying that all political parties will go out of their way to win the hearts and minds of the voters. Just like other democracies, winning over the median voter is the end game for all political parties.
But what exactly is on the minds of the median voters?
According to Merdeka Centre, the top concern for the Malaysian voters surveyed was inflation (31 per cent), followed by political instability (13 per cent), corruption (12 per cent) and enhancing economic growth (12 per cent).
In addition, 72 per cent of respondents felt that the country is going in the wrong direction due to economic concerns (32 per cent of respondents) followed by political instability (27 per cent).
How these concerns will translate into support for a particular party, or a coalition of parties, is anyone’s guess.
We want many things from our government, and never more so than in advanced democracies where the inhabitants enjoy unlimited freedom to make demands on those who rule.
We are not terribly worried that we demand more than the government can possibly deliver and we do not hesitate to demand different things that cannot come in the same package.
We want economic growth and environmental protection, and we expect our government to deliver both, although we know it is impossible to maximise both at the same time.
We want more and better services, and lower taxes, and we expect the government to square the circle.
All is in the nature of the democratic tug of war and not something anyone should get themselves worked up over.
But beneath our many and often contradictory claims on government and expectations of goods we want them to deliver, there must be some yardstick of value. Good governments deliver goods, but we must hope there is something more to it.
Presumably, we want democracy because we need governance, and because we believe democracy encourages good government.
But what, finally, is it that makes a government good? How many voters actually take the time to think about this crucial question? Democracy has a purpose. It is (or rather, should be) for the good of the people who live under its governance.
Over the years, we have witnessed how democracy has floundered abroad and at home. Promises made by political parties during the campaign period are often meant to be broken.
It is time for all of us to revisit what democracy is for.
In the run-up to GE15, Twentytwo13 has partnered with Centre for Policy Research and International Studies (CenPRIS), Universiti Sains Malaysia, to offer readers research-based analyses and insights.
Established in 1974, CenPRIS is Malaysia’s oldest social science research centre. It serves as a resource centre for information and analysis of critical issues of common concern, bringing people together to exchange views, build expertise, and develop policy options.
