PH’s biggest problem is the economy and great expectations

 PH’s core liability is that voters feel squeezed by stagnant wages and rising costs while believing the coalition has lost sight of its Reformasi agenda.

From Boo Jia Cher

Every disappointing election result for Pakatan Harapan is followed by the same post-mortem. Some blame social media. Others point to racial politics, misinformation or poor communication.

These explanations contain elements of truth, but they overlook a more fundamental reality, that PH is confronting two problems simultaneously: an unforgiving economic environment that has punished incumbent governments around the world, and a growing perception that it has lost the moral distinctiveness that once set it apart from the old political order.

The problems are structural and political. Together, they have become a potent electoral liability.

The economics of incumbency

Political scientists have long observed the phenomenon of retrospective voting. Voters judge governments less by their intentions than by their lived experience. When wages stagnate, living costs rise, and households feel financially squeezed, incumbent governments consistently bear the blame, regardless of whether those problems were inherited.

Since the pandemic, inflation, higher interest rates and slower growth have fuelled anti-incumbent sentiment across advanced and developing democracies alike.

Governments in countries such as Britain, Japan, Germany, South Korea and the US have seen support decline as voters reacted to deteriorating living standards rather than ideological differences. Malaysia is no exception. Whether PH, BN or PN, any ruling coalition would face this problem.

Many of the country’s challenges predate the current administration. Wage growth has lagged productivity for years, while Malaysia remains trapped in a middle-income situation characterised by low value-added industries and modest income growth.

This government inherited these structural constraints and cannot be blamed for creating them. International institutions have commended its efforts to strengthen fiscal discipline, rationalise subsidies and improve long-term resilience.

But voters do not experience GDP growth or fiscal consolidation. They face rising bills and stagnant salaries. A government may be making economically responsible decisions while simultaneously becoming politically unpopular.

The reform dilemma

Structural reforms inevitably carry political costs. Rationalising subsidies, broadening the tax base or strengthening public finances may improve Malaysia’s long-term trajectory, but they often create short-term discomfort.

Unlike many previous administrations, PH also campaigned on a platform of moral and institutional renewal.

For over two decades, Anwar Ibrahim and the Reformasi movement argued that Malaysia’s deeper problems were institutional rather than merely economic.

Corruption, patronage and weakened public institutions were presented as the underlying causes of slower growth and declining competitiveness. Restoring integrity was therefore not simply an ethical objective but an economic one.

Many of these reforms remain vital. Strengthening parliamentary oversight, separating the roles of Attorney-General and Public Prosecutor, and establishing an Ombudsman could improve governance for decades to come. The challenge is that institutional reform delivers its dividends slowly. For families besieged with mortgages and rising grocery bills, constitutional reform feels distant from daily struggles.

Politics rewards what is immediately felt rather than what is patiently built.

The cost of compromise

Economic frustration has been compounded by PH’s decisions to defend controversial institutional figures and make compromises surrounding politically-sensitive legal cases. Recurring controversies involving individuals close to the administration have weakened the coalition’s greatest political asset: its reputation for being fundamentally different from the governments that came before it.

Whether each decision can be defended on pragmatic grounds is almost secondary. Politics is governed as much by perception as by legal technicalities. A movement that built its legitimacy on institutional integrity cannot easily ask voters to separate political necessity from political principle.

The greatest cost may not be that reform-minded voters switch to BN or PN. Many, disillusioned, simply disengage. Recent elections suggest lower turnout among PH’s traditional supporters has become an important factor in the coalition’s disappointing performances.

Results matter more than narratives

Coalition politics inevitably requires compromise. Nobody expects ideological purity from a unity government. But compromise must ultimately produce results.

If economic reforms fail to deliver meaningful improvements in wages and living standards within a politically relevant timeframe, while political compromises erode the moral authority that once distinguished Anwar’s government, voters have little reason to be patient.

This is why PH’s challenge cannot be solved by better messaging alone. Communications can explain policy, but they cannot substitute for rising incomes, and incomes are not rising fast enough. Much of the global economic environment remains beyond Putrajaya’s control. It cannot dictate commodity prices, interest rates or geopolitical uncertainty. Nor can it undo decades of structural weaknesses within a single parliamentary term.

What it can control is how growth is felt by ordinary Malaysians, but even here the clock is unforgiving. Wage growth, affordable housing, better transport and relief from daily financial pressures are not achievements that can be conjured overnight.

Meanwhile, PH’s other asset, the credibility of Reformasi, is eroding with every compromise that blurs the line between principle and expediency. Coalition politics demands trade-offs, but the longer those trade-offs resemble the old political culture, the harder it becomes to claim moral distinctiveness.

Malaysia’s macroeconomic fundamentals may be improving on paper, but elections are not judged on fiscal responsibility or IMF assessments. They are verdicts on whether ordinary people believe their lives are getting better. And right now, too many do not.

PH does not have much time. Long-term reforms will not deliver results within the electoral cycle, and voters have already grown impatient. Unless the coalition can restore both economic confidence and its moral credibility, it risks entering the next general election with diminished goodwill. - FMT

Boo Jia Cher is an FMT reader.

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