As political
parties gear for the final stretch to the 13th General Elections,
Malaysians must not forget, our country is not a democracy. It is an electoral
authoritarian regime.
An
Electoral Authoritarian Regime
An electoral
authoritarian regime is one that uses “a democratic façade” to cover
authoritarian rule. The pretense of holding elections is “the lipstick on the
crocodile”. The most common form of
autocracy today is hidden behind elections. “The dream (of these regimes) is to
reap the fruits of electoral legitimacy without running the risk of democratic uncertainty”[1]
A democracy is
defined to include at least the following 5 attributes: (1) regular elections
that are competitive, free and fair; (2) full adult suffrage; (3) broad
protection of civil liberties including freedom of speech, press and
association; (4) absence of non-elected “tutelary” authorities such as military
or religious bodies that limit elected officials from having effective power to
govern; and (5) the existence of a reasonably level playing field.
An electoral
authoritarian regime does not have such attributes. Elections in an electoral
authoritarian regime are competitive and real but they are not free and fair. The incumbent uses government resources and
power to undermine legitimate procedures by illegitimate practices such as
electoral fraud, vote rigging, disenfranchisement, media bias, repression or
legal controls to make it difficult if not impossible for opposition parties to
sustain public campaigns and to exclude opposition leaders from contesting
through technical and legal disqualifications, bans, imprisonment or exile.
Malaysia is an
electoral authoritarian regime in the same class of Kenya during the rule of
Daniel Arap Moi and his Kenyan African National Union (“KANU”) who perfected
the use of patronage, large scale ethnic violence to divide opposition parties,
disenfranchise voters and ultimately tilted the playing field in his favour. Others
in the class include Mexico under President Miguel de la Madrid of the
Institutional Revolutionary Party (“PRI”), Zimbabwe under President Robert
Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (“ZANU-PF”).
We need only
look at the past 2 weeks to confirm the authoritarian nature of the Malaysian
regime.
Malaysia
will be heading for the polls without a clean electoral roll.
On 4 March 2013,
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim in his closing speech at the International Conference On
Malaysia 13th General Elections reminded Malaysians that fundamental
reforms for a free and fair elections have not been implemented.
Anwar Ibrahim
said:
“The paramount
importance of Bersih is undisputed. Bersih, as we all know, has made tremendous
contributions to the cause of electoral reform…The protests and demonstrations
to demand for free and fair elections clearly signify the dissatisfaction with
the state of things…
Our election commission is supposed to be the
electoral watchdog but among other things, its epic failure is that both the
commission’s chair and deputy chair were card carrying members of the ruling
UMNO party prior to their appointment.
So merely calling it an electoral commission does not guarantee its
independence and impartiality…
The existence of
hundreds and thousands of fictitious names as well as names of dead people plus
widespread duplication of names in the electoral rolls point to blatant fraud
in voter registration… The problem is
becoming rampant as evidenced by the daily exposes on this. The RCI in Sabah on the notorious Project IC
underscores the reality of the fear”
On 8th
March 2013, the Deputy Chairman of the Election Commission confirmed Anwar’s
fears. He said “this is normal” for 28% of new voters to be untraceable! Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Selangor Menteri
Besar, on 3 March 2013 voiced his concerns that 134,675 out of 500,000 new
voters in Selangor cannot be identified or traced.
All hopes for a
free and fair election were dashed on 14th March 2013, when the High
Court dismissed Klang MP, Charles Santiago’s application for judicial review. Charles
produced sufficient evidence to show the existence of phantom voters in his
constituency’s electoral rolls. However, the judge declined to strike down
section 9A of the Elections Act 1948 as being unconstitutional. The Judge
instead held he was bound by the provision that the Court cannot review, set
aside or quash the electoral rolls after they are published in the gazette.
Section 9A was enacted after the Sabah High Court declared the Likas
by-elections null and void due to the existence of phantom voters. The
government instead of cleaning the electoral rolls, introduced section 9A to
prevent the Court from reviewing the electoral rolls.
The Court’s lack
of robustness in dealing with section 9A has in the words of Charles Santiago
“legalized phantom voters”.
Opposition
Lack of Media Access
The lack of
media access is a hallmark of an electoral authoritarian regime. There is no possibility of fair elections
when opposition parties lack access to media to reach out to the electorate. Scholars
noted in electoral authoritarian regimes, media are owned or are under the
control of the incumbent. They are not
only biased in favour of the incumbent, but also form part of the incumbent’s propaganda
machine. The scholars cite the media in Malaysia as examples of this.
The media has
gone into overdrive since the Lahad Datu incursion. The focus is not on the
security situation but in spinning that Anwar Ibrahim is the mastermind behind
the incursion. Anwar had in October 2012 long before the incursion sang a song.
One line of the song is:
“Tanya sama
Najib, mengapa kau goyang. Nanti jawab
Najib, Sabah dah hilang”.
A complete
viewing of the video shows Anwar was referring to the swing in Sabahans’ support
from BN to Pakatan Rakyat and that Najib is worried BN will lose Sabah in the
coming polls. TV3 featured this one line together with news of the incursion
thereby falsely accusing Anwar to be behind the Lahad Datu incursion. This is
propaganda in its worst form. The 13th GE campaign will see the
media engaged in the worse gutter politics ever.
Repression
In many
electoral authoritarian regimes, the courts, electoral authorities and other
nominally independent arbiters of the rules of the game are not only controlled
by the incumbents but are also employed as partisan tools against the
opposition. An example is the Fujimori government’s control of the Peruvian
judicial and electoral authorities to carry out bribery, illegal surveillance,
stripping of media owner Baruch Ivcher’s citizenship, massive forgery of
signatures and passage of constitutionally dubious legislation permitting
Fujimori to win a third term in 2000.
Another example
of “legal repression” is Vladimir Putin’s use of the courts to destroy Mikhail
Khodovsky, the owner of the enormously powerful Yukos oil company by jailing
him for tax charges and seizing his company, property and stock after Khodovsky
began financing opposition parties.
In charging Tian
Chua on 14 March 2013 under the Sedition Act 1948 for his alleged comments on
Lahad Datu, the selective and partisan use of the prosecutor’s powers is clear
for all to see. Those on the other side of the political divide, who incited
racial and religious strife, promoted feelings of ill-will and hostility
between the different races and religions have been left untouched. They remain
scot free to spew hatred and contempt with impunity.
Anwar Ibrahim
remains the most wanted and persecuted opposition leader in the history of Malaysia.
He has been detained without trial and imprisoned, castigated as an outcast and
labeled a traitor to his race and religion. All these are because of his
conviction to reform Malaysia’s politics of race and fear while advocating good
governance free of corruption. The international community and experts have
noted the government’s use of corruption, repeated sodomy and other charges to
carry out a political assassination of Anwar Ibrahim. This has been vindicated
by his acquittals and recently by Saiful Bukhari’s father, Azlan Mohd Lazim on
8th March 2013 revealing the second sodomy charge was an “evil
conspiracy” against Anwar. The call by the Minister of Home Affairs for
investigations into the mastermind behind the Lahad Datu incursion after the media
frenzy against Anwar Ibrahim will surprise no one if the Security Offences (Special
Measures) Act is used to take out their biggest nemesis and threat in the
coming elections.
Intimidation
and Thugs
Another hallmark
of an electoral authoritarian regime is the use of violence and intimidation. Robert
Mugabe’s use of bully boys to intimidate voters is well documented. So is the
increasing frequency and escalating violence of thugs waving UMNO flags disrupting
Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat’s campaign.
On 8 March 2013,
Keadilan’s campaign bus on its “Merdeka Rakyat Tour” carrying Anwar Ibrahim was
attacked. They also stormed his ceramah in Kampung Bukit Katil, Melaka. They
smashed the bus windows causing the glass shards to injure passengers, supporters,
reporters and also Anwar. Keadilan supporters have been injured by stones thrown
at Anwar’s rallies. In Lembah Pantai, flower pots were thrown injuring those at
the rally. In Gombak, one supporter was slashed by a kerabit. UMNO thugs have
attacked Tian Chua at two of his ceramahs. These bullying tactics will become
more severe as the campaign heats up. Authoritarian regimes turn to their
nastiest levels of repression, intimidation and fraud when they are most
vulnerable not when their political domination is secured.[2]
Liberalizing
Malaysia from the electoral Authoritarian Regime
Law-abiding and
right thinking Malaysians must put an end to the authoritarian regime and
restore democracy. Elections in an electoral authoritarian regime may become
moments of liberalization and provide a new beginning.
One of the
reasons that electoral authoritarian regimes are able to survive is because of their
ability to divide and fragmentize the opposition. The more divided the
opposition parties, the more susceptible they are to governmental manipulation,
cooptation and repression. In order for the opposition to gain victory over an
electoral authoritarian regime, it “requires a level of opposition
mobilization, unity, skill and heroism far beyond what would normally be
required for victory in a democracy”[3]
Opposition
Coalition
The formation of
an opposition coalition is the first ingredient towards a liberalizing
electoral outcome. The formation of an opposition coalition does not refer to
the strength of the opposition per se and it is not based merely on the degree
of hostility to a leader or party in power.
Many authoritarian incumbents are deeply unpopular. Yet despite their lack of popular support, such
incumbents often maintain their hold on power. This is due to the opposition’s
inability to form effective organizational structures to challenge the
government in the electoral arena.
Political
scientists have found that what is important is for the opposition to come
together not by giving up their own party’s interest or submitting to a
charismatic leader, but in forming a strategic coalition for the specific goal
of winning the election.
An opposition
coalition increases the probability of political liberalization: (1) by taking
away votes from the ruling regime. When the opposition joins together, an
unpopular incumbent is less able to use repression and patronage to coerce and
induce people to vote for him; (2) it can prevent incumbents from playing
opposition parties and leaders against each other; (3) it increases the risk
and cost of repression and manipulation. The police, army, bureaucrats and
judiciary are less inclined to employ illegal practices in favour of the
incumbent due to fears of recrimination by the opposition if they calculate
that the opposition is able to mount a credible challenge to the ruling party
and wins; (4) it can mobilize people to vote against the incumbent as the
electorate gets a sense that change is possible and view the opposition as an
alternative governing coalition.
Keadilan, PAS
and DAP after 2008 General Elections, forged a coalition, Pakatan Rakyat. In
coming together each retained their respective party’s interest and policies by
agreeing to a Common Policy Platform in 2009. In 2010, the coalition announced a
set of policies and programmes known as “The Buku Jingga” for the first 100
days of its administration. On 25 February 2013, the coalition unveiled its
manifesto. Pakatan Rakyat has given Malaysians hope that change is not just a
possibility but can be a reality.
Rise
of the Moderates
The second
ingredient for the liberalization of Malaysia is for moderates to act. In every
authoritarian regime, notwithstanding its use of oppression and electoral fraud
it retains support of a core group. There is also a core support group for the
opposition parties. The election is ultimately a contest for the votes of the
moderates. The incumbent relies on the media and the unlevelled playing field
to entice the moderates. Moderates vote the incumbent due to their lack of
information.
Unlike previous
elections Malaysians today are aware that the nation is ruled by an electoral
authoritarian regime. The moderates in general and Bumiputras forming 60% of
the electorate in particular, must realize that electoral fraud cannot be
condoned. Electoral fraud: (1) destroys the very essence of every citizen’s
democratic right to vote for his or her government, irrespective of his or her
race, religion or political ideology; (2) undermines the foundation of a nation,
the social consensus of upholding legality; (3) cost the regime loss of
legitimacy which damages both the autocrats’ and the nation’s reputation in the
international community; (4) increases patronage, rent seeking corruption,
abuse of power and plundering of the nation’s resources;
Moderates must therefore
protest in the strongest terms by voting out the electoral authoritarian
regime. Pakatan Rakyat is ready to knock on Putrajaya’s door. It remains to be
seen whether the moderates will want to open the door or stand idly by watching
their elections being stolen from them.
William Leong
Jee Keen
Member of
Parliament Selayang
19 March 2012
[1] Levitsky
Steven and Lucan A. Way 2002 “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism” Journal
of Democracy Volume 13 No. 2 (April) 61-65; Shaedler Andreas 2002 “Elections
Without Democracy” Journal of Democracy Volume 13 No. 2 (April) 36-50
[2] Beatriz Magaloni “The Game
of Electoral Fraud and the ousting of Authoritarian Rule” American Journal of
Political Sciences Vol 54 No. 3 July 2010 pp 751-765
[3] Diamond
Larry 2002 “Thinking About Hybrid Regimes” Journal of Democracy 13(2): 21-35;
Marc Morje Howard and Philip G Roessler “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in
Competitive Authoritarian Regimes” American Journal of Political Science Volume
50 No. 2 April 2006 365-381
No comments:
Post a Comment