Look what the tide brought in

GE14’s Malaysian tsunami is expected to lead to reforms and wiser use of the vote.

A MALAYSIAN tsunami has occurred. Many analysts had spoken of a Malay swing against Barisan Nasional in GE14, but what we have seen is an unexpected wave not just across the peninsula, but also in Sabah and Sarawak.

In fact, the volume of support for the Opposition in Sarawak was astonishing, as it was seen as a “safe deposit” for Barisan.

This Malaysian tsunami was unanticipated because of the multitude of multi-cornered contests across the country. Malaysian history indicates that multi-cornered contests had favoured the incumbent, Barisan. But there is another core reason why this landslide victory was not expected.

Islamic party PAS had left the Opposition coalition and it was believed that it had forged a pact with Barisan. This alliance was apparently supposed to have helped Barisan win a number of parliamentary seats, while allowing the Islamic party to take control of some state governments, including Terengganu and Kelantan.

This agreement was seen as the reason why PAS unprecedentedly fielded candidates in nearly 160 parliamentary seats.

However, what the electorate decided was to run with PAS, as this party managed to do surprisingly well, winning 18 parliamentary seats as well as control of the Kelantan and Terengganu governments.

In the rest of the peninsula, mul- ti-cornered contests appear to have been a double-edged sword for Barisan. This alliance would have resulted in an even greater loss for Barisan, in particular Umno, had PAS not split the votes in a number of core seats.

For example, in Rembau, former youth and sports minister Khairy Jamaluddin would have lost his seat had it been a two-cornered contest.

But it is equally true that in other multi-cornered fights, Barisan would have won had it not been for PAS’ presence.

Interestingly too, the election results indicate that Malaysians are far wiser than our politicians. The electorate were well aware that multi-cornered fights can work against regime change, particularly when Opposition parties cannot find common ground by coalescing to take on a dominant ruling party.

The people have evidently voted thoughtfully, in spite of the indiscipline of Opposition parties who did not heed the need to be united when confronted with a powerful ruling party.

This political indiscipline has also proven to be to the detriment of Umno. The intra-elite feuding in the party, seen in the long dispute between its president, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, and his former mentor Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has ultimately cost Umno dearly.

What we have seen in Malaysia is what history has shown in countries under authoritarian rule: when political elites feud, regime change can occur.

What is obvious from the results is that the Malaysian electorate has sent a clear message: the time has come for a politics of reform.

One obvious demand is that our politicians must stop the politics of race. Umno, MCA and MIC have been seriously admonished, with the leaders of the latter two having lost their seats.

This is a message that Umno leaders acknowledged after the general election in 2008, when the Barisan first lost the popular vote in the peninsula. But Umno, as well as the MCA and MIC, refused to change and have now paid the price for failing to respond to the electorate.

A message has also been sent to PAS about the politics of religion. PAS has not been able to win any presence in the southern parts of the peninsula, as well as in Sabah and Sarawak.

The results have exonerated PAS’ breakaway faction, now functioning as Amanah, a party that did surprisingly well in this election. Amanah had called for a change of PAS’ mode of mobilisation, if it wanted to secure a national presence.

This election will be remembered for its remarkable outcomes.

First, as mentioned, it has resulted in the fall of a hitherto undefeated single dominant party, Umno. Until May 9, Umno had been the longest serving single dominant party in the world. Until the fall of Barisan, the multiparty coalition Umno leads, Malaysia was one of only two countries in industrialised South-East Asia that had not been subjected to a change of regime and the institutionalisation of democratic norms in the political system.

The other remarkable outcome is that this regime change has to be, ironically enough, attributed to Dr Mahathir, who led Umno for 22 years.

Dr Mahathir had left a major mark on Malaysia by guiding its rapid modernisation, but he was also held responsible for undermining many of the institutions that resulted in the concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister.

Dr Mahathir now has to initiate the reforms his coalition has promised, including urgent institutional and legislative reforms to devolve power to leading oversight agencies to enforce checks and balances in government.

As Malaysians now expect change as the country moves away, finally, from single-party rule, the government under Dr Mahathir will be closely watched as it will be led by ex-Umno leaders and former members of the Barisan component par- ties. This was, after all, one reason why many Malaysian voiced reservations of reforms by a government under Dr Mahathir.

For Umno, this serves as an opportunity for it too to institute internal reforms, including to cease its debilitating practice of patronage and money politics. Other once longstanding dominant parties, such as Kuomintang in Taiwan, went through similar reforms when it unexpectedly lost power. The Kuomintang subsequently returned to power in Taiwan.

Malaysians can look forward to a well-functioning two-party system, if Dr Mahathir delivers on the promises he has made. He can be expected to deliver as he would want to have as his legacy the institutionalisation of democratic norms.

For Umno, if it hopes to benefit from these reforms, it must convince the electorate that it too has instituted the changes long demanded of it by Malaysians.

As for the Malaysian electorate, who should be congratulated for instituting this long overdue regime change, they are now well aware they do have the power to discipline politicians who do not govern in the interest of the nation.

Terence Gomez is professor of political economy at the Faculty of Economics & Administration, Universiti Malaya. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.