The 14th general election (GE14) does not have to be held until August next year. However, it appears that it will likely be held this year. Talk of this happening is rife in the country.
With intent to exploit weaknesses in the opposition and reap the benefits of a still relatively strong economy as well as secure a fresh mandate, it is widely anticipated that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak will recommend dissolving the 13th Parliament and call an election this year.
Even if GE14 does not occur this year, in any event, August 2018 is not far away. It is thus opportune to debunk some common misunderstandings in the practice of democracy in the country. This column argues that a general election is not the only way to bring about political change in a democracy.
A general election is an important component of a thriving democracy. It is the most widely accepted means of electing a new government or allowing an incumbent government to continue with a new mandate. However, as important as it is, a general election does not exhaust all avenues for democratic political change and governance.
Citizens do not forgo their rights to continued participation in democratic governance, including bringing about change in government even soon after an election. This crucial point needs emphasis in Malaysia where so many leaders, both in government and in opposition, seem to belabour under the false belief that to bring about change in government after an election is undemocratic and illegitimate.
Further, the legitimacy of a government rests on not only how it attains state power but also how it exercises that power to advance public security and welfare. Poor performance and abuse of power could lead to loss of legitimacy and ouster of an incumbent government. It is not legitimate to use state power to enrich or protect incumbents and their cronies.
A strong democratic system should have checks and balances. It is incumbent upon citizens to focus their efforts on not only unseating unjust governments but also strengthening democratic values and institutions to ensure continued public participation in governance even after the election of a government they do not like. Simply rejecting the election outcome or withdrawing/boycotting governance after such an election demonstrates a failure to understand democracy and lack of commitment to the democratic process.
In addition to a general election, political change in a democracy can come about through actions by elected representatives as well as concerned citizens. By successfully passing a vote of no confidence in Parliament, elected representatives can bring about change in government and leaders. Following rules and procedures set out in the political legal framework, elected representatives may also bring about leadership change by impeaching a chief executive who engages in criminal activities or abuses state power. It is not undemocratic to seek the institution of impeachment provisions and related procedures if such provisions and processes do not exist.
A change in democratic government, however, does not have to come only through a physical change in leaders and parties. It can come about through change in the structure of government, methods of governance and, more generally, political norms and values. For example, changing the structure of government, including devolving more power to the states; making Parliament and the judiciary more independent; changing the purpose and scope of governance; strengthening the rule of law; increasing accountability and transparency; and introducing/developing checks and balances are all ways of bringing about political change. These and similar changes do not necessarily hinge on election outcomes.
Political opposition, especially civil society groups, could develop strategies to achieve these outcomes even in the absence of a favourable election result. However, they need to lay the necessary groundwork for such change through appropriate communicative action to naturalise related principles and norms. It is important to explore novel, non-violent ways to bring about political change in a democracy without going through an election. These efforts, however, must observe the principle that contemporary sovereignty resides in the people and that the constitution endorsed by the people is the supreme law of the land.
Political rallies are an important tool to draw attention to specific issues, rights and abuses as well as advance alternative policy direction. They can also demonstrate loss of or weaknesses in the legitimacy of an incumbent government and possibly contribute to its ouster. The power of rallies to oust incumbent governments is not limited to authoritarian or autocratic states like Ferdinand Marcos’ Philippines or Suharto’s Indonesia.
Even in democratic states, rallies may bring about that outcome by exposing the weaknesses or loss of legitimacy of an incumbent government. However, rallies and counter-rallies in a deeply polarised society could also lead to impasse and instability, paving the way for the entry of a non-democratic force like the military in Thailand. Such a situation is not desirable. That would be a major setback to the development of democracy in a country. It is important to be aware of such possibilities and take a judicious approach to political rallies.
That change in democratic governance can come about in multiple ways applies throughout the democratic world, including in the US, where segments of the population were and continue to be disappointed with the election of Donald Trump. As unpleasant and unwelcome as it may be for some, it is important to remember that others voted for Trump. Although one may not like Trump or his policies, he has attained state power through a widely acknowledged electoral system.
If the system is archaic, then action must be taken to change it. If state power has been attained illegally or is not used to advance public security and welfare, then Trump could be thrown out of office in the next election, or sooner, through impeachment and like measures provided for in the American system of government.
Further, Trump does not have full freedom in the formulation and execution of policies in a system of divided government as it prevails in the US. The temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge to stay the “travel ban” issued by Trump in an executive order is a case in point.
Those who are disappointed with the election of Trump should focus their efforts on shoring up democratic values and institutions to check him and advance alternative policy options rather than decry his election. Despite observations to the contrary, the recent massive march on Washington, DC, was not intended to overturn the recent presidential election outcome. It should be seen as intended to draw attention to women’s rights, minority rights, LGBT rights, rule of law and so on, and a check on Trump’s policies on these issues.
A key point of this column is that citizens do not cede their governance rights once an elected government comes into office. They continue to have the power to shape the purpose and method of governance. There are numerous ways to achieve these with civil society groups playing a lead role. For example, civil society organisations can monitor and expose the performance of elected representatives with a view to increasing their accountability and fostering greater transparency of the democratic process in the country.
They can advocate new norms, rules and institutions for nation and state-making and for governance in the country. They can resist policy change or advocate new policy directions through rallies and other means. However, such resistance and advocacy should be lawful, non-violent and in keeping with the principle that people are sovereign in a democracy and that the constitution, endorsed by the people, is the supreme law of the land.
This column does not deny the importance of a general election. A free and fair election is indeed an essential component of a thriving democracy. At the same time, a general election does not exhaust avenues for political change in a democracy.
It is crucial for the opposition and civil society to explore peaceful ways of bringing about political change in the country even after an election outcome that is not favourable to them. Strengthening democracy is a continuous effort. All concerned citizens should pursue it at all times. Civil society groups can play a lead role in that effort and must organise and gear themselves up accordingly.
Datuk Dr Muthiah Alagappa is visiting professor at the Asia-Europe Institute in Universiti Malaya. Concurrently, he is Distinguished Scholar in Residence in American University and non-resident senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, both 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.