Why No Greater Inclusion In Post Umno Malaysia

---

 



The frustration over DAP becoming “MCAnised” is part of the larger disillusion that the party’s ethnic minorities and liberal base encounters: they appear to have lost the leverage power after 2018.
Their keen interest in DAP’s party election yesterday was partly a quest for a solution, but few – regardless of whether they support or oppose Lim Guan Eng – would think the election outcome could make a difference.
The “political efficacy” – citizens’ ability to influence the government’s behaviour – of the non-bumiputera and liberals soared after the 2008 political tsunami but has plummeted following the 2018 regime change.
They realise and resent that they may be able to help install a new government, but they cannot get the new governments – both the first Pakatan Harapan government and the current Madani government - to deliver much on inclusion or reforms, or even just protect them from nasty attacks.
ADSWhen the new governments chase after the conservative/ethno-nationalist votes that snub them, it hurts. It is like when your lover craves his/her ex more than you exactly because he/she has been dumped by the ex.
When warned against the rise of PAS, many non-bumiputera and liberals now feel indifferent.
Enthusiasm to vote has fallen remarkably amongst the Chinese, except when PAS stupidly attacked Chinese education in the Kuala Kubu Bharu by-election.
Indians are even more frustrated because they feel more ignored and more targeted by aggressive preachers like Zakir Naik and his proteges.
Some contemplate voting Perikatan National to send Harapan the protest message while others think Najib Abdul Razak was more of a pro-Indian PM than Anwar Ibrahim is.
The root cause of the disillusion and fading political efficacy is simple: democratisation – the end of Umno’s one-party dominance – has not brought greater inclusion. Why? The answer is two-layered.
Democracy as ‘zero-sum game’
The answer at the first layer is simple. Democracy is a number game and unless enough members of the ethnic majority crave greater inclusion, greater inclusion may not happen.
Ethnic minorities can enjoy significant bargaining power in a consensus democracy like New Zealand, but Malaysia is not one.
Why don’t members of the ethnic majority crave inclusion? Because most Malaysians see things in a “zero-sum game” mentality. If “other people” do better, then “our people” must have been doing worse.
Staunchly “kiasu” (afraid to be left behind), most Malaysians across communities constantly compare themselves with others to find every evidence that “our people” have been short-changed despite all “our” virtues.
ADSHave you heard about the old Chinese uncle who switches from Chinese newspapers to Malay newspapers? He feels depressed with how marginalised the Chinese have become when reading Chinese newspapers. But he feels proud of how powerful the Chinese are when reading Malay newspapers.
Because of this “zero-sum game” mentality, when Hindus are incensed by preacher Zamri Vinoth’s provocation that compares bearing the kavadi to trance and drunkenness, his defenders might talk about how non-Muslims can do business and make money in Malay kampungs to show that the generous Muslims are the real victims due to their kindness.
Majoritarianism and the Malay anxiety
However, “zero-sum game” alone cannot explain the rapid rise of Malay anxiety since 2008 when BN lost its two-thirds majority.
Because the Malays are the unquestionable majority, they have the number in democracy to prevent whatever they reject. So, why do the Malays have to fear democracy?
If the majority of Malays prefer the New Economic Policy (NEP), Islamisation and other pro-Malay policies, how can democracy take these away from them?
The answer lies in the “majoritarian” characteristics of our political system: weak Parliament, weak state governments, state-appointed local councils, the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, attorney-general controlling the prosecution, and for three decades, executive control of the judiciary.
Majoritarianism means concentration and amplification of power at the national executive – prime minister and/or the cabinet – that it can solely decide and implement decisions, and not having to negotiate with others and make accommodations to attain some consensus.
Is majoritarianism similar to authoritarianism? Similar in governance style, but majoritarianism has the mandate from a large segment of the people while authoritarianism does not.
It is called majoritarianism in democracy because such power is supposed to be vested in the majority. In reality, such power can be captured by the plurality (the largest group that falls short of a majority), if the majority is split.
Malay nationalists loved majoritarianism when most Malay votes went to one party - Umno - because it amplified the power of Umno and the Malays.
Conceptually, majoritarianism can be good if you have a near monopoly of the majority.
However, when the near monopoly leads to abuse and discontent, resulting in division and splintering, as Umno went through three major splits (Dr Mahathir Mohamad v Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Mahathir v Anwar, Najib v Mahathir), majoritarianism can be an existential threat to the majority.
All the pro-Malay policies established through majoritarianism may be dismantled by majoritarianism if a liberal or pluralist bloc captures power.
Pluralism needs Umno, PAS and Bersatu thriving healthily
In 2018, Malay nationalists feared that Malays would lose everything because Umno was ousted and not immediately replaced by another Malay nationalist party.
Majoritarianism is like a powerful weapon that is great to have but fatal if it falls into your opponent’s hand.
From the ethno-nationalist lens, majoritarianism and multiparty competition within the majority are simply a dangerous combination.
Hence, the Malays’ best interest can be protected in only two ways: (a) restoring the near monopoly in Malay politics if majoritarianism is to stay; or, (b) dismantling majoritarianism to instead entrench the Malays’ veto power if Malay politics is destined to stay fragmented.
Tragically for the non-Malays, all the major Malay-based parties are thinking in the former way.
They may use different methods – extreme or accommodative in their positioning on ethnic minorities, persecution or co-optation against their co-ethnic rivals – but their ultimate goal is the same.
Those in opposition want to bring down the multiethnic government to restore the Malays’ control – what the Sheraton Move and the subsequent failed moves were about.
Those in government’s driver seat – be it Bersatu, Umno or PKR – hope to marginalise and absorb other Malay parties. If you are illuded by party labels, you may cheer for the elimination or absorption of the “bad” parties by the “good” ones.
Counter-intuitively, for a multicultural Malaysia to thrive, we need Umno, Bersatu and PAS to thrive healthily and compete robustly with Harapan on policy and governance.
If Umno closes shop, most of its supporters would move to PN instead of Harapan, and the Madani government would be brief like a shooting star.
If Bersatu disintegrates, PAS will be much stronger and capture many PKR and Amanah seats.
What if PAS declines badly? It might just accept Anwar’s offer to join his national unity government in the name of ummah unity.
DAP and even East Malaysian parties can then be dispensable in sustaining Anwar’s government.
READ MORE: COMMENT | DAP's challenge 2: How to escape 'bonsainisation'?
Think twice next time you gloat at PN parliamentarians who are denied their constituency allocation.
How to make democracy work for inclusion?
How can minority and liberal Malaysians make democracy work for inclusion in post-Umno rule?
At the societal level, inclusion has to benefit the ethnic majority, not just to be fair to the ethnic minorities. If you want the “zero-sum game” mentality to die out, inter-dependence is more effective than moral persuasion.
Just look at Chinese education. Why are the Malays increasingly less hostile towards Chinese primary schools (SJKCs) but staunchly dismissive towards the Chinese independent secondary schools’ Unified Examination Certificate (UEC)?
About one in six SJKC students is a Malay, but there might not be even 100 Malay students in all 61 Chinese independent secondary schools combined. The Malays are stakeholders in the former but not the latter.
At the political level, greater inclusion is only possible if the Malays overcome the fear of the floodgate – the fear that any concession will snowball to eventually uproot all privileges they enjoy.
As long as the political system stays majoritarian, inter-Malay competition and demands for inclusion would be perceived as existential threats.
Unaware to many minority and liberal Malaysians, their cheers for a “New Malaysia” in 2018 sounded like a nightmare for many Malay nationalists.
Substantial inclusion can only happen if Malaysia moves from majoritarianism to a consensus democracy that the Malays are assured of their veto power premised on their demographic dominance, regardless of the number of Malay-based parties in competition. - Mkini
WONG CHIN HUAT is a political scientist at Sunway University and a member of Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek Sama). He believes that politicians can be men’s and women’s best friends given the right House training.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---