Malaysia's Upcoming Elections: Procedure vs. Substance

By Nasruddin Hikmat

Malaysia has often been referred to as a model Islamic state – a moderate Muslim democracy. Earlier this month, on March 4, the King officially dissolved the Federal Parliament of Malaysia on the advice of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. According to the federal constitution, elections must be held within 60 days of dissolution of Parliament. The Elections Commission set the 11th General Elections for the 21st of March 2004. (Yes, Malaysians truly know the meaning of “snap” elections.) Malaysia is a federation, and all state assemblies have also been dissolved to pave the way for state-level elections with the exception of the East Malaysian state of Sarawak, which held state-level elections in 2001.

It would be interesting to keep stock of some key issues in these coming elections, framed against the larger concepts of democracy and political participation in modern Malaysia.

Referendum for the Prime Minister

The coming elections are seen as a referendum for new Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Malaysia does not have direct elections. We elect representatives to state assemblies and the lower house of our bicameral federal parliament. By convention, the prime minister is the president of the party with a plurality of seats in parliament. Thus, Abdullah has been calling for a “bigger mandate” for his ruling coalition this time around – it would help to consolidate the legitimacy of his position as Prime Minister.

Of course, mudslinging has been a staple of various election campaigns in Malaysia, and the upcoming election is no exception. What is interesting, though, is PM Abdullah’s restraint in responding to personal attacks. The Islamist opposition leader, Hadi Awang, chose very early on to attack Abdullah’s Islamic credentials. He questioned why Abdullah did not perform funeral prayers for his own mother not too long ago. According to Hadi, Abdullah is not a true Muslim for not carrying out this funeral duty. Abdullah, admirably, has chosen not to respond to Hadi’s attacks.

The Battle for Islam

The Islamists’ attacks on the ruling coalition represent the escalating battle for Islam in Malaysia. It is interesting to note that the first time Islam ever made its entrance as a political issue in Malaysia was during the 1978 elections – one year before the Islamic Revolution in Iran and three years before Dr Mahathir Mohamad became Prime Minister. Before 1978, election issues mostly revolved around poverty and Malay nationalism. Meanwhile, 26 years after Islam made its first appearance as an issue in Malaysian politics, we come to this latest interesting statistic – 49% of all Malay Muslims in Malaysia believe that we need to implement Hudud laws. This percentage is interesting, because it shows how split the Malay vote is. Thus, the ruling coalition has the advantage of being a multi-ethnic, multi-religious alliance of 14 different political parties – it can count on the votes of non-Muslim Malaysians who are skeptical of the kind of Hudud being espoused by the Islamists. Of course, the dominant party within the coalition is a Malay Muslim party, but the other parties are seen by many voters to have a moderating factor on the overall character of the coalition. The opposition, on the other hand, is seen by many to be either too fractured, or completely swallowed by the Islamists.

The percentage of Malays who want Hudud laws is also deceptive, because it doesn’t then unpack this concept of codifying Hudud. Who is going to draft these Hudud laws? What are we going to base our model of Hudud on? What then becomes of the existing Shariah system? How is our understanding of Hudud shaped? What kinds of discussions have or have not been permitted on the subject of Hudud? The battle for Islam, especially around elections, trumpets these issues but ultimately only skirts around them on both sides. And the battle for Islam can get really ugly.

For example, in his response to the recent rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl, an opposition Islamist leader said that this was Allah’s punishment on Malaysia for not being a true Islamic state.

The “Anwar Ibrahim” Factor

Many people anticipate that the Islamists will lose the battle for Islam once again in the coming elections, partly because they make so many illogical and inflammatory comments related to their quest for a “true Islamic state.” Some have also said that they are losing ground because the “Anwar Ibrahim” factor has faded away. In 1999, when support for the deposed Deputy Prime Minister’s call for reform was at its peak, the ruling coalition was naturally quite worried about how this would translate in the outcome of the elections.

But now Abdullah, it seems, is carrying out many of the reforms that Anwar stood for. Hence, the logic goes, many “reformists” do not need to align themselves to Anwar anymore – they can vote for Abdullah’s party with a clear conscience again. Abdullah has solid Islamic credentials (which he wears without resorting to the chauvinistic rhetoric used by Anwar and his supporters), and he is also known as a sweet guy who puts his foot down when it comes to corruption. However, the issue remains – will Anwar be released from his jail term any time soon? Anwar’s dismissal and subsequent imprisonment is still one of many stubborn stains on Malaysia’s human rights track record. But this is not a question that has been asked too much in the run-up to the coming election.

Some analysts, however, see that the Anwar factor is still strong in the Northern states of the Malaysia peninsula. Four states, in particular, anticipate real battles – the Northwestern states of Kedah and Perlis, and the Northeastern states of Kelantan and Terengganu. Kelantan has been governed without interruption by the opposition Islamists since 1990, while the Islamists won Terengganu in 1999. The Islamists also have a strong presence in Kedah and Perlis.

Herein lie the real issues surrounding elections in Malaysia.

Winners and Spoilers

Malaysia’s electoral system is first-past-the-post, i.e. “winner takes all.” In a system like this, small swings in votes can translate into big swings in outcomes. For example, in the 1999 elections, the ruling coalition’s share of the vote dropped 14 percent in Terengganu (from 54 to 40 percent). This 14 percent drop, however, corresponded to an 87.5 percent drop in its share of parliamentary seats, while its presence in the state assembly went from 78 to 12.5 percent – and the Islamists won by what appeared to be a landslide in the state of Terengganu.

Of course, some regions in Malaysia with strong traditions of local autonomy often choose to vote strategically. For instance, the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak (both of which only joined the Federation in 1963 – six years after the independence of the peninsula) have long had a tradition of voting strongly for the ruling coalition at the state assembly level, but voting instead for the opposition at the federal level. The logic is that these more autonomous states prefer to reap the benefits offered by a moneyed ruling coalition at the state level, but would like to see a strong opposition keeping the same ruling coalition in check at the federal level.

But this is where the role of “spoilers” in Malaysian elections becomes problematic. Because of the first-past-the-post electoral system, only straight fights between two candidates produce results that are more or less clear-cut about voters’ wishes. The introduction of a third or even fourth contender could usually swing votes away from a potential winner, even by a margin as small as 5 percent. Thus, three- and four-cornered fights are generally avoided by opposition candidates, who are generally disadvantaged compared to ruling party incumbents.

These are factors that directly address the issue of elections in Malaysia. But we must remember that elections are only a procedure to elect a government – they are not true measures of whether or not a system is substantively democratic. One way of looking at this is by analyzing voter awareness in Malaysia. In the example of strategic voting employed by more autonomous sections of the Malaysian electorate, it is fair to say that there are a number of Malaysian voters who are aware of their issues, and who understand what it means to vote. But there are other factors that hamper political participation, and hence there are many more voters who are not aware of what it actually means to vote in elections.

Restrictions on Media Coverage

The media, for instance, usually errs on the side of the ruling coalition during elections. Generally favorable and widespread coverage is given to ruling coalition candidates, while opposition candidates are relegated to smaller spaces, or are sometimes not even given the space to respond to the ruling coalition’s views. In this sense, the wider electorate is not given a clear or balanced picture of the state of politics in Malaysia. This is quite strange, considering the fact that the ruling coalition seems quite dismissive of the opposition. This is the paradox – while announcing its confidence in being able to defeat the opposition during the coming elections, the ruling coalition has also resorted to taking out lots of ad-space in the state-owned and state-aligned print and broadcast media to air several incendiary and inflammatory claims about the opposition, without offering the opposition the space to respond to these claims.

This is probably due to a complex combination of issues. On one hand, the ruling coalition has been so entrenched in government that it has been able to consolidate and expand the powers of the executive arm of government, to the detriment of the independence of the legislative arm, the judiciary and the press. Many laws that restrict freedom of expression and freedom of association were not thought up by the Islamists – they are a legacy of our colonial past, and have been expanded and abused by the ruling coalition over the years. It’s as though the ruling coalition has been building this monstrous machine, and if the Islamists somehow manage to take over, all they have to do is push the “Start” button.

However, there are still mechanisms for keeping check on issues like this. For instance the Elections Commission, as an independent monitoring body, is responsible for ensuring that elections are free and fair. This includes ensuring that the media gives equal space for both ruling coalition and opposition candidates to air their views. But more often than not, the Elections Commission chooses not to exercise its discretionary powers in cases like this.

The Role of the Elections Commission

There are other factors which are out of the Commission’s control. For example, the Elections Commission has no power to re-draw the boundaries for the various constituencies. The Commission can only recommend such changes in delineation to the Prime Minister, who is the ultimate authority in the delineation of constituencies. This has led to the delineation of various new constituencies to the advantage of the ruling coalition, and to the detriment of the opposition.

These are examples of how voter political participation has its limits in Malaysia’s electoral system. There are also limits placed on the participation of candidates in elections. For example, prior to 2002, candidates running for elections in Malaysia had to fork out deposits of 5,000 Malaysian Ringgit (1,305 US Dollars) in order to run for elections. This was already the highest amount for election deposits among Commonwealth countries. (Australia, for example, sets deposits at 250 Australian Dollars, while Canada sets deposits at 200 Canadian Dollars.) Recently, the federal parliament passed the Election Amendment Bill, where election deposits have been tripled for the upcoming elections.

What Future for Elections in Malaysia?

A lot of this boils down to voters who are unaware of substantial issues. But this in turn is tied to the political fortunes of the ruling coalition. Ever since Independence, the National Front has won all general elections, mostly with more than a two-thirds majority. Since the federal constitution allows for the passage or amendment of laws by a majority of more than two-thirds of parliament, this has made it easy for the National Front to amend and pass laws to its advantage. It also helps the National Front that the opposition is largely fragmented and disunited. For instance, the formidable challenge posed by the coalition of reformists, Islamists and supporters of Anwar in 1999 seems to be breaking up right now, with the Islamists bent on exerting their will on their opposition allies.

Just recently, the spiritual leader of the Islamist party, Nik Aziz, dismissed another opposition (albeit secular) candidate, Syed Husin Ali, for being a socialist (read: un-Islamic). Thus, the Islamists have refused to include Syed Husin in their overall strategy for challenging the National Front in the coming election. Syed Husin has responded by saying that his faith in Islam is personal, and that nobody has the right to attack his faith just because he refuses to use it as a political tool.

And thus we approach elections this 21st of March.

On the whole, elections in Malaysia will only start being really interesting once the majority of voters go to the polls completely clear on what they know and what they want. But going by the current constitutional and extra-constitutional climate, this is going to be an uphill task.

However, a cross-section of Malaysians is increasingly aware of this reality. It will be interesting to see how this cross-section of Malaysians translates its awareness into democratic action and mass mobilization, and organizes itself to tackle future elections.