Criticising govts is easy, taking over much harder

 Balancing short-term political survival with long-term institutional reform requires extraordinary wisdom.

From Moaz Nair

At the recent Umno General Assembly, an unprecedented wave of boisterous and feverish demands emerged. Party members and sympathisers clearly expected Anwar Ibrahim’s government to bow to their threats, dissolve Parliament, and trigger a general election.

Internal political developments within Umno are raising significant questions about the party’s direction. Several of its key leaders appear increasingly comfortable working with the Anwar Ibrahim-led administration.

Furthermore, with the country experiencing political stability and a steady economy, there is little incentive to dissolve Parliament early—especially since the next general election is not due until early 2028.

History proves time and again that the momentum needed to bring down a government is vastly different from the capacity required to run a country.

Seizing political power relies on sharp strategies and exploiting an incumbent’s weaknesses. Governing, however, demands something entirely different: building rock-solid institutions, managing the economy efficiently, and maintaining public trust over the long haul.

The illusion of unity

Opposition movements are usually bound by a single, absolute goal: bringing down the government or the system. This shared enemy creates a temporary alliance that looks unbreakable from the outside, even if it is made up of diverse factions with deeply conflicting ideologies.

But mobilising the masses usually relies on raw emotion and provocation. Once the common enemy is gone, the coalition inevitably cracks, as internal factions begin to fight over influence, power and state resources.

Failure of governance

Governments often fail not because they lack democratic space, but because they suffer from a massive deficit in administrative capacity. New regimes frequently fall into a classic trap: they chase electoral mandates with intense passion but neglect the unglamorous, complex, behind-the-scenes work of nation-building.

While their leaders are highly skilled at riding public anger to build momentum, they often find themselves stranded once they actually take the wheel.

Look no further than the 2011 Arab Spring. Mass protests successfully brought down long-standing dictatorships in Egypt and Libya.

Unfortunately, the resulting power vacuum triggered severe political instability, economic collapse, and civil war. While opposition groups found it easy to blame past regimes for societal failures, they automatically inherited those exact crises the moment they took office.

In short, criticising is easy; fixing is hard. New governments do not just inherit structural crises; they also face sky-high public expectations.

Balancing short-term political survival with long-term institutional reform requires extraordinary wisdom, especially under tight economic constraints. Governance requires technical expertise, not just noise and revolutionary rage. Running a country demands competent bureaucrats, not herd instincts or street activists.

Capital flight, disillusionment

History shows that sudden political transitions in developing nations often disrupt supply chains. This immediately triggers shortages of basic goods like food, fuel, and medicine, plunging the nation into hyperinflation and rapidly eroding support for the new government.

To make matters worse, new administrations rarely start with a clean slate. The previous regime may have drained foreign currency reserves or left behind a mountain of sovereign debt.

The new government must pay these debts to keep its international credibility, shrinking the national budget available for promised social programmes.

This political instability panics investors and the middle class. The wealthy start moving their assets to offshore banks, while highly skilled professionals choose to emigrate. This capital flight drains financial resources and bleeds the country of critical administrative talent.

Meanwhile, the magic formulas promised on the campaign trail vanish.

Citizens who risked everything for systemic change grow disillusioned. They demand an immediate ‘peace dividend’—higher wages, lower prices, and reliable public services. When sweet economic promises fail to materialise, public frustration peaks.

The legitimacy of power

To transition from a temporary protest movement into a credible ruling power, a government must build a functional state. It must end chaos immediately by establishing a clear, consistent legal framework. If an administration fails to provide basic security, a stable economy, and the rule of law, its sacred promises are broken, and its legitimacy shatters.

Ultimately, destabilising an existing government—especially one with a sensibly strong economic track record—is a losing gamble. Such drastic measures are only justified if the incumbent regime has visibly and systematically failed the nation.

Overthrowing a government may look easy, but governing effectively is a gruelling challenge. That is the absolute reality of the political stage. - FMT

Moaz Nair is an FMT reader.

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