Bersatu Six decision and the backsliding of reforms

 

First, there was not applying fair allocation to all constituencies.

Now, there is the anti-hopping law, as six formerly Bersatu men are allowed to keep their seats technically as opposition even though they changed political allegiances and were suspended from their party for doing so.

For both allocations and hopping, the actions infringe on the essence of reform that was at the heart of the measures arising during the political turbulence of the Covid-19 period.

Fairness and public accountability were tied to the respective measures. No constituency was to be punished by denial of funds for how they voted. Politicians were supposed to be held accountable for changing political loyalties to access power and its spoils.

Malaysia’s institutions were supposed to be strengthened irrespective of the allegiances of those in office.

The decision by Dewan Rakyat speaker Johari Abdul (above) to allow the six Madani-government-aligned, former Bersatu MPs to keep their seats is a dangerous precedent.

If Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin follows through with his response to the decision, the anti-hopping law will now be tested in the courts, with different interpretations by different speakers in the Dewan Rakyat and Kelantan, from different political allegiances.

It brings the anti-hopping law to question, eroding political accountability, and repeating a long-honed practice of empowering partisan politicians.

The six-men decision also calls into question party constitutions that have provisions penalising members with suspension if they leave the party. Among the parties with similar provisions are DAP, Amanah, and Umno.

The move has the potential to open up the gateway to political instability rather than close it.

Instead of strengthening the Madani government, the decision weakens it while simultaneously backsliding political reform.

Prime Minister and PKR president Anwar Ibrahim in front of a graphic portraying parties in his government

Madani defensive justifications

Let’s look at the justifications for the decision. The arguments to support the speaker’s six-men decision have been threefold:

1) Bersatu did not want the measure in the first place and how it has gone about, putting the amendment for suspensions after the fact, is allegedly wrong.

2) The decision ensures that the government, at least for now, continues to retain a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

3) The six are still considered opposition so, it is argued, there is no violation of the law.

Each of these arguments is flawed.

First, Bersatu did pass the amendment to their party constitution to carry out suspensions. Kelantan’s state assembly recognised this, thus the by-election of Nenggiri this August. The suspensions happened according to the law.

Blaming Bersatu is a strategy of deflection that does not recognise the actions taken by the party to come in line with the anti-hopping provisions and other parties’ constitutions, including parties within the governing coalition.

Second, the decision is seen as one of political interest rather than protecting democracy in the national interest. All too often, the norm has been to equate the interests of elites with those of the nation. Malaysia has a long history of “using power to stay in power”.

At its core, the decision is not democratic; it denies the ability of voters to decide their representation and reduces political accountability.

Moreover, the speaker’s decision does not guarantee political stability. In fact, it runs counter to it, potentially creating options for individuals in Umno, DAP, or other parties to change alignments if their party constitution provisions are not upheld.

It is important to keep in mind that for all these parties, the disgruntlement within Umno about being in the Madani government is the most significant.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim (left) with Deputy Prime Minister and Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi at the 2023 Umno general assembly

Undercutting the anti-hopping law, however flawed the legislation is, removes a legal protection for political stability. It was a law made for all parties, not just for some.

As to the third justification, the labelling of the six as opposition runs counter to what the men themselves have said. In repeated comments, they have stated their alignment with the Madani government. This is not the actions of an opposition.

Perceived fear of polls

The harmful effects of this decision go beyond the weaknesses of the justifications provided.

First, with the decision coming right after a by-election defeat, the decision showcases fear of facing a poll and the public.

Of the six seats in question, only two of these - Tanjong Karang and Labuan - were competitive polls, with the others likely losses for the Anwar Ibrahim government. It would appear that the government is not willing to suffer another electoral defeat.

Instead, the decision shores up strength for the opposition by angering the opposition’s political base.

Given that the Madani government did not have its own electoral mandate to govern post-GE15, relying on elite alliances and the support of key leaders, this decision to avoid by-elections feeds those who believe the government does not have political legitimacy.

It further contributes to political polarisation and increases the chances that the seats, and others, will be lost in the future.

The decision reflects political insecurity, not strength; political expediency, not reinforcement.

Spectre of political karma

It was not too long ago that another speaker used his powers controversially, assuring that a then Perikatan Nasional leader held onto power.

The result of partisan politicking was that the power was lost anyway, the credibility of those involved was impacted, and the perception of Parliament at that time worsened.

Ironically, that impacted leader Muhyiddin is now facing a political decision against him by the current speaker of Parliament. Some would relish this political karma.

The problem is that the six-men decision spills over to the institutions involved, notably fostering distrust of Parliament as a body to represent all Malaysians.

Dewan Rakyat, Parliament building

Before this decision, the current speaker had done a good job in strengthening Parliament, largely holding the legislature above the muck of politics and political polarisation. The decision will make this harder for the future, contributing to public apathy and anger, and partisan acrimony.

Malaysian political history shows that reform backsliding only makes the challenge of bringing into force stronger laws and political institutions even more challenging.

Even if the Madani government had lost the six by-elections, it would not have significantly changed the Parliament composition. The government has yet to use its two-thirds majority to pass meaningful political reforms to date. Moving forward, it will be more difficult to do so.

Unnecessary harm has been done with the six-men decision. It will now be up to the courts to potentially put this right. Irrespective of whether this happens, the political damage to Malaysian democracy and the Madani government will remain.

Given the increased frequency of political karma in current politics, this issue is not whether karma will come, but when. - Mkini

---

BRIDGET WELSH is an honourary research associate of the University of Nottingham’s Asia Research Institute, a senior research associate at Hu Fu Center for East Asia Democratic Studies, and a senior associate fellow at The Habibie Centre. Her writings can be found at bridgetwelsh.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT