Populist Coalition
Professor Dr. P Sivamurugan, Merdeka-Online
The story of Pakatan Harapan is that it is a coalition of a few political parties in the opposition that were left unregistered after DAP announced the end of Pakatan Rakyat on 16 June 2015. Is this coalition the first in the history of the opposition or has history shown that it has tried to form a large coalition, the likes of Parti Perikatan (now Barisan Nasional), but failed?
Prior to this, opposition parties have attempted a few forms of loose coalitions. Between 1945 until 1948, the coalition Putera – AMCJA involving almost 100 Chinese associations tried to protest the 1948 Malaya Federation but it did not last long in view of the state of emergency and immense pressure from various sides. From 1957 until 1966, the Socialist Front, which involved the People’s Party and the Labour Party emerged. Its objective was to form a socialist democratic country, but in the end, failed due to pressures, specifically on the issue of the national language.
The crisis in UMNO, and the economic downturn brought about the Gagasan Rakyat in the 90s, which is a coalition of Semangat 46 (S46), DAP, PRM and IPF as well as PBS, whereas Perpaduan Ummah was a coalition between S46, PAS and the Hamim party. Two coalitions were formed, one for parties linked to Islam and the other, the opposite. These brought about the fall of Kelantan; but after the election of 1995, DAP left. It also saw S46 re-join UMNO; but the vernacular school and the Merdeka University issue impacted it negatively.
After the sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 and the conflict with the ex-Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the reformation movement emerged and this brought about the Barisan Alternatif coalition in 1999; a coalition between PAS, DAP, Keadilan and PRM. The effect of this was that BN lost in Kelantan and Terengganu. Nevertheless, this also did not last as the issue of the Muslim country caused DAP to leave the coalition in September 2001.
In 2008, the coalition of the opposition parties again came into action, namely, PAS, DAP and PKR under the name Pakatan Rakyat, after witnessing the support received to the Bersih and Hindraf demonstrations in November 2007. It won in five states and foiled BN’s two-thirds majority mission. Throughout the period 1 April 2008 until 16 June 2015, relations between PKR, DAP and PAS became less warm compared to what it was at the start of the coalition, leading to a breakup, even when Pas was of the view that this coalition remained based on its cooperation with PKR. Again, DAP left because of the hudud issue.
Another opposition coalition named Pakatan Harapan has now emerged. Clearly, PAS has been side lined in this, up to the point that it decided to severe tahaluf siyasi ties with PKR last May on the grounds that PKR is not supportive of its Islamic agenda; and is besmirching PAS’ image through its cooperation with those that aim to bring PAS down.
Lately, PAS is again sought by PKR, particularly by its Deputy President, Datuk Seri Mohammed Azmin Ali. PKR’s own leadership is opposed to this, as PKR is of the view that the distribution of seats is done with and PAS is not necessary, although Anwar himself was hopeful. DAP strategists were of the view that the absence of PAS will enable them to win the 14th GE. This is in line with the stance of Pakatan Harapan Chairman, Dr. Mahathir who does not want the relationship with PAS to become an obstacle to the existing cooperation process.
Solely using populist methods will not carry Pakatan Harapan anywhere. Firstly, it has not comprehensively detailed out how it is to alter the lives of the bottom 40 per cent living under the poverty line. Its leadership is still reliant on old leaders, where Indian, Sabah and Sarawak ones are excluded from the core leadership framework of the coalition.
Secondly, how would its policies be uniquely portrayed if compared to that of the BN’s, when PKR itself is using BN’s coalition-forming template. The difference is one is registered, whereas the other is still searching, as it was with PR previously.
Thirdly, are they able to strengthen their effort towards a one on one fight, whereas each has listed pre-conditions to being together, be it PAS, PKR, DAP and AMANAH. Fourthly, can DAP and PAS again sit at the same table? Which party will retreat or return to the two forms of cooperation as in 1990? Or in a few states including Selangor will there exist cooperation that differs from the stance at the core?
Fifth, although there exists differences, can it be put aside easily as long as it follows the mantra “As long as it is not BN?” Sixth, if internal problems persist, will we be able see the height of the opposition party performance as in the 13th GE? Internal squabbles are more apparent now and there also exists those who hold grudges backed by supporters who are vile, disgraceful and who shames the leadership itself.
Seven, would this bring about apathy among voters who are fed up with continuous politicking of the opposition party; although it is undeniable that currently those loyal to the party will remain as is. Eight, what exactly does on the fence voters want from PH? Are they capable of becoming alternatives or do they only want to become the opposition in order to check and balance BN?
Now PAS is requesting PKR’s consideration of its proposal – withdrawing from Pakatan Harapan and joining them in Gagasan Sejahtera. Will this continue or will this be the formula used for majority Malay areas such as Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis as well Selangor, for example?
In total, Pakatan Harapan is still not strong enough as issues that it carries creates the impression that it only aims to topple the current government. Part of the voters assumes that it is better to choose stability in uncertain situations rather than bring about change.
Professor Dr. P Sivamurugan from the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) School of Social Sciences
