What has pork barrel gotta do with graft? – Rama Ramanathan

What do pork barrels have to do with tackling corruption in Malaysia?

That question has been pinging in my mind since listening to Minister for Governance and Integrity Datuk Paul Low’s presentation about fighting corruption in Malaysia.

"Pork barrel politics" – a term commonly used by political analysts worldwide – is the name of the game in Malaysia. Why pork barrel?

Black slaves were fed badly. From time to time, they would be given bacon, salted portions of the flesh of pigs, the cheapest animals to rear.

Meat could only be kept through salting, in barrels. There was no refrigeration then.

When the time came for distribution – and it wasn’t often – the slaves would gather around the “boss” who would reach into the barrel, pick up handfuls of bacon and throw it over the slaves, who would scramble to grab some.

“Pork barrel politics” came to signify the distribution of benefits by those who held power.

Low said the first foundation in his strategy to eliminate corruption and establish integrity was “inclusive institutions”.

He explained “inclusive institution” by describing the opposite kind of institution, an “extractive institution”.

He said extractive institutions were tools for extracting wealth, unlike inclusive institutions which shared power and protected rights.

He spoke about the political will to effect change. In my last post I critiqued his definition.

In this post, I focus on the maturity of the political system in Malaysia and what it means for the fight to end corruption and establish integrity nationwide.

In a democracy, you obtain power to govern by winning the ballot: you have to get large numbers of people to vote for you.

If you are a visionary leader with grand ambitions, you need to remain in power for a long time.

To remain in power, you have to get people to continue voting for you at repeated intervals.

The politician’s challenge is to get an effective answer to the questions: “how to get into office? how to remain in office?”

Early in his first term as United States president, Abraham Lincoln replaced 1,200 of 1,500 Federal officials with “the party faithful”.

Lincoln knew the importance of patronage: give jobs to people who can bring in the votes.

Low’s boss, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak knows this, too: he’s taken a risk in Umno by not giving plum ministerial jobs to Umno faithful, though he’s also given plum jobs to Umnoputra like Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

So, when Low was asked whether he thought his boss was serious about fighting corruption, he could honestly answer in the affirmative.

The choice of Paul Low for a ministerial job does mean that Najib had to exercise political will: Najib had to explain to the Umno-Barisan Nasional faithful that it was politically expedient to give a plum job to Paul.

The most prized commodity in politics is loyalty. You need people you can trust.

Who can you trust in politics? Some say the answer of Malaysia’s best known prime minister to that question is “you can count on the loyalty of the one against whom you have the biggest pile of dirt, the one who knows you can bring him down instantly”.

Another answer often given is “you can count on the loyalty of the one who has most to lose if you lose”, that is, the beneficiary of your patronage.

Political scientists have written much about party loyalty. Here’s a simple schema:

Phase A: Deferential-traditional. In this phase, loyalty ties are vertical, one way. You’re the boss, the king. I’m honour-bound to be loyal to you.

You have power to do good or ill to me. Therefore, I will choose loyalty and expect that you will do me no ill. Inducements play a negligible role.

Phase B: Reciprocal-parochial. After a period of rapid socio-economic change, others emerge and vie for my loyalty. I can be enriched by my loyalty.

I will be loyal to those who meet my terms. As a leader, I’ll deliver my groups’ vote to you if you offer me better inducements than your opponents, for example, promises to retain ketuanan Melayu (Malay superiority) policies. Votes are delivered, not based on ideals or policies, but on individual benefits. Inducements are individual benefits.

Phase C: Negotiated-societal. When there is a substantial urban middle-class and groups have formed on the basis of occupations or income, groups will give their loyalty to those who will deliver benefits to the group, for example, implement the goods and services tax as a means of reducing or at least capping the maximum rate of personal income tax. Inducements are group benefits.

Pork barrel politics predominate in Phase B, a phase in which it’s not inappropriate to call politicians “bosses”, people whose tunes we are willing to dance to, because they are willing to give us – and those in our families or ethnic groups – “plum jobs and contracts” and other means of rising above poverty and achieving material comfort.

When we consider the (BR1M) handouts given by our government to the poorer sectors of society – we know we are in the era of pork barrel politics: an era in which politicians gain and retain power by offering inducements both as one-off gifts and as salaries or contracts for those who denote such gifts as “good and desirable”.

In boleh land, pork barrel politics has been taken to a higher level.

Photos of pigs are blacked out, perhaps to reduce the likelihood of creating amok from a particular segment of society.

Pork meat is dropped at places of worship. The only gainers are those who wish us to remain in Phase B, to retain their “bargaining power”.

They want Umno to remain an extractive institution.

I hope we, Low and others will succeed in persuading his bosses to reject pork and its purveyors.

* Rama Ramanathan reads The Malaysian Insider.