This article first appeared in The Edge Malaysia Weekly, on April 25 - May 1, 2016.

Slander, scandals and innuendos have become common in Malaysian politics. One can hardly read a newspaper today — in print or online — without encountering these issues, particularly in relation to the ongoing leadership tussles. It is indeed a sorry situation.

Proud of their country, Malaysians were once able to hold their heads high. Alas, this has become more difficult these days. Many understandings and institutions that underpinned Malaysia’s stability, prosperity and good governance in the past appear to be becoming undone.

For sure, nothing stands still. Change is the only constant. The challenge now is, how do we move forward to strengthen the Malaysian nation and state, and enhance peace, stability and good governance in the country?

Although key segments of the public at large are focused on a leadership change, such change will not take us far. In fact, we should stop looking for the next knight in shining armour to save us. Leaders were indeed very important at the time of our liberation from colonial rule. But society has changed much and so has the quality of leadership in the country.

The present crop of leaders from all parties is no longer capable or willing to put nation above self. Further, many of our present problems stem from our deep faith and belief in leaders. Our future well-being lies not in another knight in shining armour but in charting a course that reduces the role of leaders in politics and governance. We should look beyond specific leaders to reform the system, so that it can weather leadership and other struggles at the national and state levels.

The present system needs to be reformed in many ways, but for want of space and time, I will focus this column on one important dimension — moving towards a more genuine federal political system that empowers states.

Our constitution supports a federal political structure, although in reality it could be read as enhancing federal power while limiting that of states. Over time, even the limited authority vested with states has been eroded. Today, states have little or no authority to do anything on their own. On most matters, they have to refer to and await the approval of Kuala Lumpur.

Although it may look attractive from certain perspectives (uniformity, efficiency), concentrating power in Kuala Lumpur has several severe disadvantages. Concentration of power with little or no checks and balances can lead to abuse and corruption. It can also make for deadly struggles for state power in the country.

Those wielding state power can deploy it to eliminate checks and balances and, indeed, all opposition to enrich oneself and cronies. The potential for such abuse of power would counter likely gains from uniformity and efficiency. My argument is not to do away with federal power but to limit it to essential areas such as defence, foreign affairs, and monetary and fiscal policies.

The centre should also have the power to coordinate among states, help resolve interstate problems and provide support for small and weak states such as Perlis that have a limited revenue base. But on most matters, the states should be able to act on their own.

Malaysia is a federal state. Malaya would not have come into being if the constituent states (via their Sultans) had not agreed to form the Federation of Malaya. Likewise, Malaysia would not have come into being without the agreement of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak.

It is unfortunate that states today have become heavily dependent on Kuala Lumpur for support and survival. Sarawak is now attempting to gain greater autonomy within the federation and so may Sabah. This is a welcome development.

We should aim to make all states centres of excellence in governance within the Federation of Malaysia. States should be able to collect revenue, plan and implement projects and, in general, make decisions on a wide range of matters affecting the political, economic and socio-cultural welfare of their residents.

With its own Sultan, Raja or Yang di-Pertua Negeri, legislature, executive (menteri besar and executive committee) and civil service, each state is well placed to govern. Some features may be weak in certain states but these can be strengthened over time.

States would also have to explore governance at the municipal level and devolve power to that level. Most states are big enough to exist separately. For comparison purposes, contemporary Brunei has a land area of 2,228 square miles (5,770 sq km) and a population of about 400,000.

I am not suggesting a return to an earlier era of absolute rule by Sultans but to a system of constitutional rule within a federal political structure in which power is disbursed to levels immediately relevant to and accessible by the people.

Such devolution of power would be in line with the principle of popular sovereignty and enhance democracy in the country. Devolution would also reduce the centrality of Kuala Lumpur and correspondingly reduce the intensity of struggle for state power at the national level.

Opportunities for abuse of power and corruption should decline correspondingly as well. Some may contend that devolution may breed many more centres of corruption. That is indeed possible but the chances of each and every centre of power being simultaneously corrupt in a country with 13 states are likely low.

Even if that were the case, the level of corruption would be less severe. More likely, devolution would spur competition among states and improve governance. It would also be more democratic.

I am not arguing for abolishing central authority but for limiting it and empowering states. The distribution of power between centre and states in a federal political structure is a dynamic one that alters over time and with circumstances. The pendulum may have swung too far in the direction of federal authority. Now may be the time to reverse that swing.

Systemic reform along the lines suggested here would strengthen democracy and foster good governance in the country. For certain, it will not resolve all the problems confronting us. That entails political development in nation-making, state-making, governance and enhancing the role of civil society.

Further, devolution of power to states and municipalities is not without its problems. The distribution of power between national, state and municipal levels is a complex and dynamic matter that should be examined in detail periodically and implemented over a period of time.

After about 60 years of Malayan independence and about 50 years after the formation of Malaysia as well as in the context of the ongoing unravelling of the political system that has served the country well until the recent past, now may be an opportune moment to begin that exercise.

Incumbent leaders (government and opposition) must commit themselves to setting up a Royal Commission — with stature akin to that of the Reid Commission, which drew up Malaya/Malaysia’s constitution — to undertake this task.

It will be an enduring legacy that puts the well-being of the country and people above everything else.

Datuk Muthiah Alagappa is visiting professor in the Asia-Europe Institute in Universiti Malaya. Concurrently, he is non-resident senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.