Politics for the people, not politicians

Recent political crises, from the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government to the rise of the new Perikatan Nasional (PN) ruling coalition, have highlighted how politicians are placing their own selfish interests over the rakyat’s struggles.

People are tired of the farces by political “frogs”, which in general ignore the rakyat’s mandate.

They long for new, principled and ethical politicians to emerge in the political arena, to lead the country right as well as to set Malaysia free from the notorious mud of money politics, kleptocracy, non-fulfilment of manifesto promises and political appointments at GLCs.

A new political culture based on integrity, ethics and service for the public good is very much needed and anticipated.

The dilemma facing current politics is that most politicians prioritise personal interests over public ones. In public, they will always say they entered politics for the sake of the 3Rs – rakyat, religion and race – but in actuality it’s for the sake of the 3Ms – me, me and me.

When asked why they would switch sides and support their former rivals, the official and standard answer is often: “This is for the development of their electorate”. Is this justifiable?

Given the unequal federal-state relations in Malaysia which incline state assemblymen towards the ruling federal government in hope of obtaining more funds for their constituencies, this is true to a certain degree.

However, the rakyat generally see this as a cover for the politician’s greed and his personal craving for power. The political reality in Malaysia lies within party politics where the party is the be-all and end-all of things.

Leaving aside the debate on the pros and cons of party politics, the fact is that voters vote according to the party, not the candidate itself. Hence, the mandate of the rakyat or the public interest is deeply intertwined with the political party. Seen from this perspective, party hopping is deemed as against the will of the electorate.

But the mandate of the rakyat could also be seen as the rakyat having no mandate at all in terms of choice. The rakyat are “forced” to choose candidates chosen by the parties because it is the party who chooses the candidates, not the rakyat. Thus, the mandate of the rakyat is limited to electing the candidates decided by the parties. The choice of candidates is actually the mandate of the parties. To put it bluntly, the rakyat only have the mandate to elect, while the party has the mandate to choose.

Then, there is the individual mandate of the candidates to accept their nomination by the parties. The assumption is they would normally accept it if the stance, principles and beliefs of the party are in alignment with theirs.

This implies that at any moment after winning the election, if the candidates decide or perceive that there is a dichotomy between the stance, principles and beliefs of their party and theirs, they have the right to hop.

And this right to hop is recognised in the constitution via the right of association and assembly as enshrined in Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution. But there are others who say that even though party hopping is constitutional, anything in the constitution that is detrimental to the rakyat can be removed by amending it.

But at the moment, amending the constitution is a no-brainer. As pointed out by former minister Nazri Aziz, given the current political fragmentation in Parliament, a constitutional amendment that needs a two-thirds majority is almost impossible to attain.

He proposed a party-list system in which the winning party will always hold the constituency it won and the incumbent hopper will lose his seat. Although this too would require a two-thirds majority, Nazri felt it would be more palatable in getting the support of the majority of MPs.

Another way would be through the implementation of recall elections in which the politician’s defection is put to vote by the electorate – an idea advocated by Wong Chin Huat, a political scientist from Sunway University which is a practice in some states in the US.

The current political culture that prioritises personal interests is not just immoral and inappropriate in nature, but unhealthy to the political development, economic progress and well-being of the society as well as other aspects of the nation.

Since the political crisis that began in February, several PH state governments have collapsed, the latest being the Sabah government which will hold a snap election on Sept 26.

The current political culture has also impacted the economy in terms of the uncertainties it engenders and the cost of organising a snap election at the federal level. This probably explains the daily net capital outflow despite the good performance of the stock exchange.

All these lead to a deficit in trust towards politics and the government. If this persists, the legitimacy of the current government will always be questioned. As it is impossible for any one party in Malaysia to form the government, this new political culture should be the basis and maxim of coalition politics in the country.

It is by no means a “be-all and end-all” solution to the current dilemma. However, this new political culture will alleviate to a certain degree the drawbacks induced by the present situation.

It also suits the interests of both the ruling coalition as well as the opposition, as they have been greatly affected by the practice of party hopping. Hence, they have the incentive to incubate and promote the new culture.

This nation is in urgent need of a new political culture that is based on integrity, ethics and service for the public good.

Jamari Mohtar and Lim Ji Yi are part of the research team at EMIR Research. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of us.