One step forward and two steps back

 

From P Ramasamy

Whoever said Malaysians who want change for the better are dejected or defeated is wrong. The truth is far from it.

Of course, those who want a better and more responsible government might have felt defeated when Pakatan Harapan (PH) was ousted through the nefarious Sheraton Move in February 2020.

It was a move that was supposedly done in the guise of safeguarding race and religion, but in practice, it was something else.

Prior to the last general election (GE14), not everyone in the then opposition wanted Dr Mahathir Mohamad to lead PH. It was also not alright to argue that he was needed to help PH cross the finishing line.

He was not a changed person but a cunning fox who was ultimately responsible for the fall of the PH government. This is because, without his involvement the Sheraton Move would not have taken place.

Until today, the PH coalition is still licking its wounds inflicted by Mahathir and all those behind the Sheraton Move.

However, the race and religious champions were not primarily responsible for the fall of the PH government.

PH, given its lack of experience in the government and its political naivety, had a role in its own collapse.

Much water has passed under the bridge since the infamous Sheraton Move.

So, now it is time for PH to sort out its internal problems before taking on the Umno-Barisan Nasional juggernaut in the next general election (GE15), which may take place this year.

There is not much time left for a real post-mortem on the issues affecting the opposition.

Young leaders

It goes without saying that leadership is a crucial issue facing the opposition.

There is talk that certain individuals holding senior posts in the component parties must make way for young leaders.

It is argued that DAP has since sorted out the leadership matter but not the other component parties, especially PKR, or even Amanah to some extent.

Leadership change is not substituting old leaders with young leaders although age might be a consideration.

However, the sole focus on age or seniority misses the key point of the contributions by certain senior leaders, with some of them being the founders of their respective political parties.

Also, leadership change with the aim of taking on Umno-BN in GE15 needs to come from internal discussions within the respective parties of the coalition.

PKR president Anwar Ibrahim who happens to be the founder of the party has been asked to step down and give way to young leaders.

There is nothing wrong with this request from outsiders who had hardly any role in the birth and consolidation of the reformist movement that came to be actualised in the formation of PKR.

Outsiders who are not part of the opposition political movement can say what they like.

However, it is not for them to suggest changes to the leadership in the component parties of PH.

The quest for change must come from within by way of healthy discussions rather than those trying to effect change from outside.

Internal democratic process

Lately, there have been too many civil society leaders asking for such leadership change in PH component parties.

It is not that these leaders should not make known their views, but they should at least respect the internal democratic processes of the respective parties.

Somehow or rather putting the blame on Anwar as the sole cause of the malaise in PH might be a naive attempt to provide ammunition to those that even the progressive forces are against.

Even if there is merit in discussing leadership changes in PH, maybe the timing might not be advantageous to the opposition in general.

I think that PH has to go with the present leadership as time is not in their favour.

As it stands, the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the government and the opposition might have brought some benefits such as the move towards embracing the anti-hopping legislation.

But at the same time, it has prevented the opposition to some extent from being able to come out with its own version of what is needed for the future of the country.

I am agreeable with civil society members that there is no political option other than PH. But, it is not for civil society to determine the direction of politics in the country.

They might embrace the opposition when there is a necessity but distance themselves under different political and social circumstances.

Civil society must accept change under the belief that only political parties and political movement can bring about desirable change.

Trying to get the benefit by taking a middle-path is opportunistic and counter productive for change.

For the PH opposition, they function and operate under trying political circumstances.

They cannot move ahead without understanding why they were held back in the recent past.

The path of taking one step forward and two steps back, is a requirement of political wisdom. - FMT

P Ramasamy is Penang deputy chief minister II.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.