Blog

The past few weeks have been a tumultuous period for Malaysia. As the dust settles (for now), and Malaysia’s 10th Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, prepares to helm the new government, it is timely to take a step back and consider the current state of the country, as well as lessons that leaders and ordinary citizens should takeaway. As an individual who studied political science, here are three points of reflection about nation-building and where we go from here.

Lesson 1: Democracy is not an easy feat, but it has always been a part of Malaysia’s story
In the world of political science, Malaysia has traditionally been described with terms such as “illiberal democracy”, “electoral authoritarian state”, and “hybrid regime”. These terms suggest that Malaysia has not always been a full democracy committed to the promotion of equity, inclusiveness, and the preservation of human (especially minority) freedoms.

However, it is more interesting to look at democratisation than democracy. If we look at Malaysia’s track record of democratisation since the early 2000s, we cannot deny that Malaysia has been nothing but impressive for two reasons. First, reformation goes beyond the current Prime Minister or his political party’s legacy, as over the years we have increasingly seen political parties form alliances and negotiate in ways that would have otherwise never been imaginable twenty years ago (e.g., the passing of bipartisan bills in recent years and the electoral alliance of sworn enemies BN-PH). 

Second, despite challenges to Malaysia’s institutions (e.g., the judiciary and electoral process), these institutions have always emerged stronger, even as law and policymakers learn from such experiences and work to strengthen them (e.g., the establishment of the anti-hopping law as a result of the Sheraton move).

The key point is that democracy is not a state of being. It is a continuous, collective work in progress by citizens to make the process better. While it is true that day-to-day politics can be frustrating to follow, we cannot be sure that political developments may subvert our democracy again. Only by looking at the long-term will we realise that democracy is well alive in Malaysia, and democratic processes are worth preserving, in the continuous quest for a just and equitable Malaysia.

Lesson 2: Time to embrace suboptimality
With the formation of the new Cabinet at this time of writing, it is no surprise that many voters are disappointed or have reservations with the final line-up. Does this warrant doubt about the state of politics in Malaysia once again? The second lesson thus comes from a seemingly counterintuitive proposition — that in Malaysia’s democracy, the most satisfactory and ideal outcome of GE15 may be, in fact, an outcome where nobody is satisfied.

This seemingly paradoxical proposition may sound strange to those who hold partisan views. However, the proposition does not, in fact, come from political science. Instead, its intellectual roots originate from engineering and systems theory, [1] and the principle is that if you optimise any subsystem, you will suboptimise the system. In a complex system like Malaysian politics, a Cabinet consisting of Ministers from different political coalitions  may seem suboptimal at first glance, but that might turn out to be a good thing compared to an optimised, unbalanced, party-dominant Cabinet. This is because, paradoxically, instability breeds stability in the long run if leaders learn how to manage the instability without breaking the system. Instability forces leaders to fix emergent problems (such as learning how to work with politically sworn but talented rivals), rather than maintain the status quo (of continuing to work with political allies that are less talented), thus improving the system in the long run – a paradox indeed, but one which system theorists have seen coming many years ago. 

This suboptimal arrangement also trickles down to the rest of the system. I have had the privilege to join a programme that exposed me to the governance system of Malaysia. From a personal point of view, for all its flaws, the bureaucracy has evolved to withstand shocks to political turnover, especially since 2018’s GE14 which saw the government change for the first time. Civil servants across the hierarchy mentioned how they have been more prepared to accept any new government and to work with new ministers to continue delivering quality public service. Of course, much more work must be done, but it is only when we embrace suboptimality, can we continue to learn, innovate, and thrive in this complex world.
 

Lesson 3: We need to build bridges in a plural and polarised society
A final trend that had been identified from the developments of GE15 is the rise of conservatism — or rather, the revelation to the Malaysian living in the urban progressive bubble — that a significant proportion of fellow Malaysians possess different political and cultural worldviews. This revelation shouldn’t have been unexpected. The renowned historian of Southeast Asia, J.S. Furnival once coined the concept of a plural society, that is, a society “comprising two or more elements or social orders which live side by side, yet without mingling, in one political unit”. Malaysia represents such a plural society, not just by race, but also by class, and it is no surprise that politics in Malaysia reflects this distinction.

Yet, a plural society also means that cultural and identity conflicts are more pronounced and dangerous when left unchecked. While it is acknowledged that conservative groups promoted immoderate narratives during the political campaign, (e.g., postings of provocative content on the May 13 riots online in the aftermath of GE15), many groups on the liberal progressive side of the bench have also not played their part in consensus building. Calling people who you do not agree with, a chauvinist or fundamentalist, does not help build bridges.

Instead, Malaysia urgently needs stewards — convenors who can bring different parties together into constructive and wholesome conversations. We need to find allies across government and civil society who could design spaces, programmes, and policies to bring Malaysians of different backgrounds together. Most importantly, we ourselves need to become individuals who can empathise that, as fellow human beings, everyone has assumptions, biases, and worldviews that will be somewhat correct, but also incomplete due to our human limitations. It is only when we embrace our limitations and contradictions that we can shift away from polarisation and work towards building a society that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Moving Forward
In the words of Thomas Sowell, the first lesson of economics is about scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of zero-sum games, politics is the art of making the impossible, possible. Once again, Malaysia stands at a crossroads where the decisions we make, and the narratives we create, will have significant implications for the country’s future. May our leaders be prepared to think beyond the box, and carve out a space for all Malaysians through the decisions they make, and may we continue to support these decisions with the nation’s long-term interest at heart.

References:
[1] For the interested reader, see systems theory scholars like Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory (1968) and Fred Koffman, The Meaning Revolution: The Power of Transcendent Leadership (2018).