Institutionalising defences against populism

THIRTEEN years ago I was working for a member of parliament in the British House of Commons, and had to summarise the speeches of Francis Maude, the chairman of the Conservative Party, who oversaw a transition of party leadership from Michael Howard to David Cameron – the first Conservative since John Major who succeeded in becoming Prime Minister, serving six years until the British electorate narrowly voted to leave the European Union in a referendum promised by his party’s election manifesto (though he had campaigned for Britain to remain in a ‘reformed’ EU).

I was also an admirer of Shami Chakrabarti, who was director of Liberty, a civil liberties advocacy group: her articulate defence of freedom against authoritarianism motivated me and my colleagues as we established the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs ( Ideas).

I was initially starstruck, therefore, when joining the now- ennobled Lord Maude and Baroness Chakrabarti, together with BBC Africa journalist Vera Kwakofi, at a panel discussion hosted by the British Malaysian Society ( BMS) and Kuala Lumpur Business Club ( KLBC) at the Inner Temple in London on the key role of institutions in a functioning democracy in a world of populist governments.

Lord Maude spoke about the resistance he faced, as Minister for the Cabinet Office, from civil servants in seeking greater efficiencies and renegotiating government contracts. Baroness Chakrabarti, now Shadow Attorney General, drew a distinction between ‘ populist’ and ‘ popular’ government as the presence of checks and balances and the rule of law in the latter. Vera Kwakofi shared the experience of several African countries, where popular leaders who began as heroes (in fighting for independence, for example) all too often degenerated into dictators, sometimes leading to civil war, making democratisation a challenge today.

That was sobering: as much as Malaysian democrats have rejoiced in a peaceful transition, we should be grateful that it did not come after a legacy of civil war, poverty, and displacement. Nor have we suffered the worst excesses of populism facing established democracies – although it’s vital that party leaders keep racial and religious rhetoric in check.

In my speech, I noted that while our 14th general election had some hallmarks of populist campaigning – such as social media bypassing traditional channels, the focus ( positive and negative) on personalities and messages of cleaning up Putrajaya (compare “draining the swamp”) – the manifesto also pledged to restore democratic institutions and repeal draconian legislation.

This combination puts Malaysia in a unique position that also bestows a huge responsibility. If this democratic project fails, then we may be added to a list of once-promising experiments. If we succeed, we become a golden case study of how democratic reform can be achieved from an imperfect base.

One audience member asked if ‘ Mahathir 2.0’ is different from ‘ Mahathir 1.0’, and how this impacts reform prospects. Whether the Prime Minister’s beliefs have changed, I replied, matters less than the fact that civil society is vocal, unafraid, organised, and able to influence public debate more now than ever before. As such, I am confident that many reforms will happen and become permanent fixtures of Malaysian democracy, even if attempts are being made to reduce expectations of delivery compared to the manifesto that was promised.

Welcome changes are already being applied or discussed in relation to our Parliament: resources for opposition members, the formation of Select Committees, and even the possibility of greater electoral reform. However, two developments this week raise new challenges to that institution.

The first is that the Senate has blocked the repeal of the Anti-Fake News Act, possibly a harbinger of that chamber’s behaviour going forward. Although existing law enables the Dewan Rakyat to bulldoze through the Dewan Negara’s objections (after a delay), perhaps we could look to the United Kingdom where a constitutional convention – the Salisbury Doctrine – means that the second chamber does not oppose government legislation promised in its election manifesto.

The second is the announcement that one member of parliament, elected by his constituents in the expectation of serving a full term – and having sworn an oath to “faithfully discharge my duties as such” – is resigning to enable someone else to contest the seat. No doubt, supporters of the move will say that this apparent affront to Parliament cannot be interpreted in isolation: there is a broader political context – indeed, remedy – that is being sought.

But there were many more remedies, and a much greater vision, to be delivered when our Constitution was adopted at Merdeka. It is only if today’s constitutional officeholders and politicians exemplify the same loyalty to principles as Tuanku and Tunku Abdul Rahman – both alumni of the Inner Temple – that our nation will be protected from those who desire populist modes of power.

Tunku Zain Al-Abidin founding president of Ideas. is