Leadership Change In Harapan

---

 


ADUN SPEAKS | Who said Malaysians who want change for the better are dejected or defeated? Far from it.
Of course, those who want a better and more responsible government might have felt defeated when Pakatan Harapan was ousted through the nefarious Sheraton Move.
A move which was intended in the guise of safeguarding race and religion. In practice, it was something else.
Not all in the opposition wanted Dr Mahathir Mohammed to lead the Harapan coalition. It was not alright to argue that he was needed to help the coalition cross the finish line.
He was not a changed person but a cunning fox responsible for the fall of the Harapan government. Without his conspiracy, there would not have been the Sheraton Move.
The Harapan coalition is licking its wounds inflicted by Mahathir and those behind the Sheraton Move.
However, it was not the race and religious champions who were solely responsible for the fall of the Harapan government.
The Harapan coalition, given its lack of experience in the government and political naivety, had a role in its own collapse.
Much water has passed under the bridge since the infamous Sheraton Move.
The opposition coalition has to sort out its internal problems before taking on the Umno-BN juggernaut.
Maybe the next general election is this year or possibly next year. There is not much time left for a real post-mortem on the issues affecting the opposition.
Leadership change
It need not be stated that leadership is a crucial issue facing the opposition. There are already talks that certain individuals holding senior posts in the component parties must make way for young leaders.
It is argued that DAP has sorted out the leadership matter but not other component parties such as the PKR or even Amanah to some extent.
New DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke (left) and now party chairperson Lim Guan Eng (right)Leadership change is not substituting old leaders with young leaders although age might be considered.
However, the sole focus on age or seniority misses the key point of the contributions of certain senior leaders, some of whom are founders of the respective political parties.
But leadership change with the aim of taking on the Umno/BN juggernaut needs to come from internal discussions within the respective parties of the coalition.
PKR president Anwar Ibrahim who happens to be the founder of the party has been asked to step down by giving way to young leaders.
There is nothing wrong with this request from outsiders who had hardly any role in the birth and consolidation of the reformist movement that came to be actualised in the formation of PKR.
Outsiders who are not part of the opposition political movement can say what they like. However, it is not for them to actually make changes to the leadership in the component parties of Harapan.
The quest for change has come from within by way of healthy discussions rather than those trying to effect change from the outside.
Lately, there have been too many civil society leaders asking for a leadership change. It is not that these leaders should not make known their views, but they should at least respect the internal democratic processes of the respective parties.
PKR party election eventSomehow or rather, putting the blame on Anwar as the sole cause of the malaise in Harapan might be naively providing ammunition to those that the progressive forces are actually against.
Even if there is merit in discussing leadership changes in the opposition, maybe the timing might not be advantageous to the opposition in general.
GE is coming
I think that Harapan has to go with the present leadership as time is not in their favour. And I am agreeable with civil society members that there is no political option other than Harapan.
As it is, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the government and the opposition might have brought some benefits, such as the move toward embracing anti-hopping legislation.
But at the same time, it has dented the opposition to some extent for not coming out with its own version of what is needed for the future of the country.
It is not for civil society to determine the direction of politics in the country. They might embrace the opposition when there is a necessity but distance themselves under different political and social circumstances.
Civil society must accept change under the belief that only political parties and political movements can bring about desirable change.
Trying to get benefits by taking a middle path is opportunistic and counterproductive for change.
For Harapan in the opposition, they can function and operate under trying political circumstances but they cannot move ahead without understanding why they were held back in the recent past.
Understanding why one is taking one step forward and two steps back is a requirement of political wisdom. - Mkini
P RAMASAMY is Perai assemblyperson and Penang deputy chief minister II.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---