After UMNO has been losing ground over the last few years, in 2008 in particular, the challenges for Najib will be great. While Malaysia is being hit harder and harder by the international financial crisis, Najib will have to reform and revitalize his party, the Barisan Nasional coalition and the government of Malaysia itself if he is to have any hope of holding the opposition coalition under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim at bay.

On taking office, the heredtary nobleman Najib is already shrouded in suspicions of corruption and scandal – none of which have been yet to stick in court, but are accepted by large parts of the population. His work is certainly cut out for him.

See also these posts:

• Najib’s challenges
• 10-minute guide to Malaysian politics

September 16 2008, the opposition movement’s new national day, was announced to be the day the roots of the Malaysian establishment would shake and mass defections from the government coalition would be announced. The blogging community and opposition coalition leaks had the tally at more than 30 MPs ready to jump sides, and the Pakatan Rakyat opposition coalition ready to sweep in and take power. But the day came and went with out much of the announced ruckus. Certainly no mass defections.

Within the UMNO ruling party change appeared to be brewing with a struggle for future leadership as the unpopular Abdullah Badawi reluctantly announced he would hand over power. But the great power struggle died in round 1, as the nomination process showed overwhelming support for the favourite, and no other candidate was able to get the required nominations. No surprises, no great change.

So did no change ever come, and has the opposition movement lost its momentum? I’m not so sure. Change might not come as fast as what many people had hoped and Anwar seemed to promise. The boldness of the first months might have needed to be tempered somewhat. I don’t think we’ll see anything like the colour revolutions just yet. That option passed with the September 16 deadline.

There has however been some movement. 2008 did see some important events that didn’t go in favour of the political establishment. The great landmark was the general election in which the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition lost its 2/3 parliament majority for the first time in the history of the young country. Then two much publicized by-elections have turned out in the favour of the opposition. A few defections there has been as well, most recently last week in Perak where a key parliament member switched sides.

Also, Abdullah Badawi has not been the defence player Mahathir once was. His feeble efforts at stopping Anwar from reentering the parliament, censoring online criticism and other issues have not been charactericed by the same decisiveness with which Mahathir cracked down on Anwar in 1998. He has simply not been able to apply the authoritarian measures of his predecessor with the same effectiveness. Election results and other signs seem to indicate that public support is slipping, and UMNO’s efforts to regain it just don’t have the punch they need to.

These are all among the things adding credibility to the opposition, and it looks like Anwar and his compatriots have been able to build the most credible opposition block Malaysia has yet seen. Not fulfilling outrageous promises of seizing power right away doesn’t seem to have killed the movement at the outset, but will they be able to avoid disilusionment and apathy as the months go?

It will also be interesting to see what happens when Abdullah Badawi steps down from power. Can the new UMNO leadership under Najib Razak bring the initiative back to the Barisan Nasional coalition, or will the game be kept on their half of the court?

Recommended further reading:

• Deborah Loh / The Nut Graph: “Testing time for Pakatan Rakyat“
• Deborah Loh / The Nut Graph: “Swing time in Kuala Terengganu“
• Deborah Loh / The Nut Graph: “Lessons from Kuala Terengganu“
• Leslie Lau / The Malaysian Insider: “Anwar Ibrahim, probably Malaysia’s greatest comeback kid“
• Richard Craince / Far Eastern Economic Review “Malaysia’s Authoritarian Resurgence“
• Zubaidah Abu Bakar / New Straits Times: “Kuala Terengganu is up in the air for now“
• M. Bakri Musa /Lim Kit Siang: “UMNO reform must begin with Najib Razak“

The first thing to know is the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, or National Alliance. This multi-party coalition has ruled since Malaysia’s independence in 1957, enjoying a 2/3 parliament majority until 2008. Malaysian politics is traditionally divided along ethnic lines, and the three original coalition partners are the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the Malaysian Chinese Asscociation (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). There are also several smaller parties.

Most important of these parties is UMNO, holding majority within BN, as the most important party representing the largest ethnic group in Malaysia, the Malays. The Prime Minister of Malaysia has always been from UMNO. One of these prime ministers is Tun Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled the party and Malaysia throughout the 80s and 90s.

In the late 90s, his deputy was Anwar Ibrahim. Unlike the conservative ultranationalist Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar was a young liberal, popular with the public arguing for reform. Among the reforms he wanted was the abolishment of the Bumiputra policy, a policy instated in the 70s bestowing economic and social benefits to Malay nationals which has allowed for the creation of a Malay economic elite in the country. In 1998 Anwar, by then a major threat to Tun Mahathir’s power, was accused of sodomy (a serious offense in the Muslim Malaysia) and corruption and imprisoned. This sparked riots by the so-called ‘Reformasi’ movement. The riots died out, but left a large group of middle class Malaysian discontents.

In 2003 Mahathir Mohamad, then age 78, stepped down from power handing the reins over to Abdullah Badawi, nicknamed Pak Lah (short for Uncle Abdullah). Abdullah has ruled UMNO and as PM since, but has proved a much less competent and popular leader tham Mahathir ever was.

2008 has so far been an important turning point in Malaysian history. First the BN suffered a great defeat in the parliament election, for the first time losing its 2/3 majority in the parliament. The big winner was the new opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat. Later, two minor parties of the BN from the provinces of Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo broke away from the coalition.

Furthermore, Anwar Ibrahim’s ban from participating in Malaysian politics was lifted. His wife withdrew from parliament, creating the need for a by-election through which Anwar Ibrahim regained a seat in the parliament and took the position of opposition leader.

The troubles of the year have given fuel to a strong internal opposition within the UMNO party, and open criticism from its Supreme Council which has called for Abdullah’s resignation. He has promised to hand over power by the year 2010, presumably to his deputy PM Najib Tun Razak, but this has not been enough to quiet dissent. Calls have been made for his resignation already at the next general assembly of UMNO. As of the time I’m writing this, there is yet much speculation about what Abdullah’s next move will be. Rumours range from immediate resignation, through handing over power to any number of possible successors to just clinging to power for as long as he can.

In the meantime, Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat have been busy. They claim to have a list of as much as 40 MPs ready to defect from BN. In addition there are rumours of the possibility of the BN party Gerakan being ready to defect, and that Pakatan Rakyat will move for a vote of no confidence against the cabinet and form a new government, alternatively taking the matter to the Malaysian king. However, the fact that no move or publication has yet been made may indicate that the PR position might not be as strong as they claim.

One last important event. Important tools of Malaysian autocracy have been a strict media censorship and a law called the Internal Security Act (ISA), which have been the target of much criticism by human rights and freedom of speech groups. Both tools have been widely abused by prime ministers. The latter gives the PM the right to imprison anyone for extended periods of time based on any accusation of threat to national security. Lately, these two were used first to block the independent news source Malaysia Today to Malaysian users, and then to imprison its editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin, who has among other things accused Deputy PM Najib’s wife of connections to the murder of a Mongolian journalist. Several other activists were also arrested under the same act. The power of Malaysian bloggers, which are very numerous, is a big threat to the effectiveness of the media censorship and thus to the autocratic methods of the Malaysian leadership. So far, Abdullah appears unable to do much to limit this power.

Well, that’s my summary of 10 years of Malaysian politics in 10 minutes. Hope it might help clear some of the confusion. Keep in mind that this is just my limited analysis from an overseas vantage point, and that things are changing at a breakneck pace.

Further reading:

• Nachspiel at Polemarchus’: “Anwar Ibrahim returns to the Malaysian Parliament“
• Nachspiel at Polemarchus’: “Sex, lies and capital controls – How Mahathir painted himself into a corner.“
• Tun Mahathir Mohamad’s blog chedet.com
• www.anwaribrahim.com
• Proud 2B Malaysian: “What ifs in october” on what might happen this month.
• Malaysia Today: “Malaysian power struggle continues unabated“
• BBC News: “Malaysian writer in sedition trial“
• The Kuala Lumpur Traveller: “RPK: Deputy PM Najib’s wife Rosmah was at Altantuya’s murder scene.“

His analysis is for the most part sound. It makes sense that people would vote for a genuine opponent rather than a utopian third party candidate if what they wanted was to punish the BN. I believe he is right that at least a good portion of the opposition votes were the result of BN disillusionment. I do however think he underestimates the genuine support in Malaysia for reform, and most importantly I think he is mistaken with regard to his final point:

14. We cannot fault the BN concept and governance. We have to look elsewhere for the loss of confidence in the party.

For reasons I have discussed at much more length earlier, there are several things that make me believe that the very UMNO (and BN) system is unsustainable in the long run:

1. The system of patronage is dependent on prosperity continually increasing for the majority of the people. As the system presupposes that a class gets special privileges, there must be enough wealth to go around to make sure the remaining population also see things continually improving. Every fluctuation in the economy thus becomes a serious threat. If we are heading for another major recession, things could get ugly.

2. The effectiveness of media censorship is decreasing drastically. The internet has all but killed this. For example in the case of Malaysia Today, not only did the message still get out, but the actual censorship itself created much negative attention for the current leadership. The reason for this ineffectiveness is the massive amount of channels for alternative news now available. The difference is striking from how it was in the country when I lived there in ’98, and my friends in Europe were better informed than I was in Malaysia about certain currents event the government wanted to keep hushed up.

3. Economic globalization also excerts pressure on the Malaysian system. Even through the Malaysian economy has proved much more resilient to change than many less successful nations, and has shown that a third way is indeed possible, I think this will become harder and harder. The “Japanese model” of protectionism may still be a viable option, but if one for example wishes to attract internet-based industry, it will be hard to continue to try and censor media. It seems reasonable to expect that such pressures will continue to emerge.

4. A viable option to the current regime has been allowed to grow in credibility. For decades there was no realistic alternative to BN rule. The opposition was no more than a nuisance, and very few people actually believed in it. Now the opposition has been able build a base – not yet to rival the BN, but real enough that it migh potentially do so in the future.

5. To some extent none of these things are new, and the BN regime has been able to live with all these things before. Why should it not continue to do so? The main reason, I believe, lies at the very heart of autocracy: It is greatly dependent on its leader. An autocratic regime must necessarily lean for a great part on the authority of its leader. When temporary failures of the system (as are bound to appear from time to time) appear, the leader must be able to lend his authority to gloss things over until the problem can be fixed. For the regime to be able to prevail in the long run, it therefore needs to have a continuous string of great leaders. And I believe the job is getting tougher and tougher as much of the world are pushing stronger for liberalism.

6. Abdullah Badawi is no Mahathir Mohamad. I may never have liked Mahathir and his rule, but no one can claim he wasn’t successful for decades. All the way up til ’98 he managed to steer the country with a firm hand, beating down crisis after crisis and keeping the rickety structure of the system standing. I see little of that strength in Mohamad Badawi. He has at several times appeared as an insecure and desperate man trying to copy the policies of Mahathir with no where near his skill. He also fails to be innovative and adapt to changing realitites the way Mahathir did. A perfect example is how Mohamad Badawi tries to censor Malaysia Today, while an 83-year-old Mahathir Mohamad sees which way the wind is blowing and has become an active Facebook member.

To sum things up: Mahathir is right about the fact that a weaker leadership is threatening to break the BN system apart. I do, however believe that it is a series of inherent weaknesses in the system that allows it to do so. The benefit of a liberal democracy is that the system is able to work independent of failing leaders. The essentially autocratic Malaysian regime will need to reform itself into a more robust form if it isn’t to come crashing down.

…then again I might not mind all that much if it were to happen.

It’s been 10 years since the great power struggle between Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim, then Prime Minister and deputy in Malaysia. In 1998 it ended with Anwar being accused of sodomy, arrested, expelled from the party and the parliament. He was cleared of those charges by the court, but convicted for corruption after trying to pressure the police to drop the investigation. I live in Malaysia at the time, and like everyone else around me, didn’t believe much in the charges. At least the part about sodomy.

Anwar was released from prison in 2004, and earlier this year had his ban from political activity lifted. Then he went on to lead his party to their best election ever, for the first time breaking the 2/3 majority of the Barisan Nasional coalition that has ruled Malaysia since the country’s independence from Great Britain.

Mahathir Mohamad resigned after 22 years as Malaysia’s Prime minister in 2003, at age 78, and finally handed the reins over to his successor, Mohammad Badawi. Although few expected drastic changes in Malaysia, there was at least a hope that Badawi might gradually move Malaysia in a less authoritarian direction.

In this previous post I presented a paper I wrote on the struggle between Mahathir and Anwar and how the interplay between domestic politics and international economy forced Mahathir to desperate action. Is what we’re seing now, 10 years after the events described there, a case of history repeating itself in a slightly less dramatic way? Is this Badawi’s counter-move to the serious threat posed by an Anwar that once again has the winds of politics in his sails?

Politically, it is at least very convenient. As several sources (for example this one) have reported, there are rumours of neotiations between UMNO (Badawi’s ruling party) and the islamist PAS party. It certainly seems to be suited to strengthen ties between UMNO and PAS if the main figure of the more secular opposition is once again accused of something an islamist party could never allow itself to be associated with. What other options than cooperation with UMNO does PAS have now?

I don’t know if the allegations against Anwar are true or not. And as a morally liberal non-muslim, I wouldn’t really mind if they were. But in a throughly muslim country like Malaysia this is no minor accusation. He could face 20 years of imprisonment, and certainly once again being ostracised from the political community. But whether or not the allegations against Anwar are true, they are certainly publicised in a very convenient manner at a very convenient time for Badawi. And we’ve seen this pattern before in Malaysia.

I’ll be following the news with interest…

——————–

UPDATE: Related articles from the web

• Audie61s blog: “Believe me Anwar: Your best friend is Abdullah”
• Proud 2B Malaysian “Sodomy vs. economy – who cares for us Malaysians?”
• Thestar.com.my: “Syed Hamid on why Saiful wasn’t charged”
• Thestar.com.my: “Anwar to be opposition leader on Aug27″