Tipping Points

'Tipping Points', a compilation of essays "on the reasons for and impact of the March 8 election earthquake" edited by Oon Yeoh and published by The Edge is out in bookstores. It features essays on the subject by a range of public intellectuals and opinion leaders including Hishamuddin Rais, Azly Rahman, Farish Noor, Ooi Kooi Beng, Wong Chin Huat and Tricia Yeoh.

I was privileged enough to have been asked to contribute an essay. It is reproduced below.

MIS

In Search Of Democracy: The Rebirth Of Federalism

Political homogeneity over a long period of time and an aggressive central government that had curbed the freedom and individuality of state governments, much as it had suppressed the ability of Malaysians to think and act independently, had resulted in the general belief that this nation was a federation in name only. For many, we were one nation with one government. Through willful neglect by the mainstream media, Kelantan stood largely forgotten.

In this setting, it is unsurprising that federalism had been relegated to the realm of abstract theory of little practical value. For some, federalism had additionally become associated with events that put an edge to the notion. The tensions in Sabah and Sarawak following the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, and the race riots of 1969, having arisen in part due to imbalances that were permitted by the federal-state divide, stood as painful reminders of the potential destructiveness of a federal system.

The results of the 2008 general elections however compel a reassessment. Those results, viewed in their context, and their effects - notably the establishment of non-Barisan Nasional governments in five states, a seemingly more discerning wielding of discretion by the monarchs in Perlis and Trengganu, and the forging of the Pakatan Rakyat - offer a valuable opportunity to not only recast positively our view of federalism but also to harness it in nation building efforts.

A consideration of the subject must necessarily start with a reminder. Prior to the proclamation of independence in 1957, even with the British having annexed the territories of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak, there were separate nation states. Though it may be argued that Penang, Malacca, Sabah and Sarawak stand on a different footing from the other states, this does not undermine the proposition. There were different nation states, each of these states having their own constitutional arrangement, more usually governed by a Ruler. Merdeka brought these states into a compact, sealed by the Federal Constitution, the Rulers of these states agreeing that these states would be collectively administered by a Westminster style government at the federal level complimented by Westminster style governments at the state level to which they would cede authority.

The individual states did not cease to exist. They continued to function as such, though under the aegis of a central government at the federal level. There was as such never any legal barrier to the states being governed in a manner suited to the unique needs of the states and their residents. Though federal controls over certain aspects of governance – policing, the administration of justice, immigration, to name a few – could be said to have allowed for encroachment into the sovereign areas of the states, this in itself did not allow for an undermining of the virtual autonomy of the states on matters directly affecting the interests of the states. This was a vital feature of the Malaysian constitutional arrangement, one that was always intended to be a bulwark against totalitarian control.

The politicization of governance however undermined this crucial aspect of Malaysian democracy. The consistent, near absolute control of all the states by the Barisan had allowed for the colonization of states by the federal government and, through it, the Barisan. With it came a dismantling of essential barricades that allowed for the states to be yoked for the needs of an increasingly elitist, self-interested leadership at the federal and state levels. Sabah and Sarawak exemplify this sad state of affairs.

The taking of five states by the Pakatan Rakyat however now offers a landscape vastly different from that prior to the General Elections. Kelantan is no longer a minority of one. The distinct shift in voter trends, its underlying causes and the dawning realization of the need to resonate with the rakyat have to be reckoned with if the Barisan is to remain relevant. Additionally, the importance of Penang, Perak and Selangor will necessarily force the Barisan to reject the policy of marginalization it employed against Kelantan. Such a policy would not only reinforce support for the Pakatan Rakyat but may also affect vested Barisan interests in these states. The Barisan federal government will eventually have to deal with the governments of these states as independent governments, a competitive state of affairs that can only be in the interests of the nation.

This is a process that may be further fueled by a more independent and discerning articulation of royal discretion. The stand-offs in Perlis and Trengganu are suggestive of ‘makkal sakti’ having left an impression on the monarchs of these states. Despite clear pressure, the state constitutions were correctly applied and decisions made to reject deficient political appointments. This cannot be reasonably characterized as having been wrongly interventionist. Conversely, the positions taken indicate a growing awareness of the full extent to which the autonomy of the state can and should be invoked in aid of democratic process.

In some ways, the mould has been broken. Race riots did not erupt as the Barisan governments of the Pakatan states fell. The ghost of May 13th , and one of the bigger concerns about increased autonomy, may have been put to rest. It is now up to us to shape the democracy that is best suited for us.