This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on January 31, 2022 - February 6, 2022

We have seen examples of democracies in many places in the world where elections have resulted in weak, if not altogether dysfunctional, governments. These dysfunctionalities, which result in ineffective governments, have brought about the emergence of far right governments — parties that exploit the dissatisfaction in the population and the democratic process to take power and put in place authoritarian policies. In some other cases, they have resulted in populist governments that ended up bankrupting the treasury. The failure of democratic processes to produce effective governments will give rise to extremes: authoritarian regimes or populist governments, both of which will end up in a bad place.

Observers tend to conclude that it is divided electorates that give rise to weak governments where there is no dominant party or coalition, but that reasoning lacks the understanding of the aims of democracy. It is as if good democracies are ones that result in dominant governments. The principle of one person, one vote can result in fragmented outcomes that are, in themselves, not a bad thing but nor should it necessarily result in ineffective governments.

What has happened in many places, including in Malaysia, is the fragmentation among the electorate has hardened the partisanship among political parties. This hyper partisanship effectively removed the national median voter, that middle of the road person, from the issues of national interest. Instead of a single peaked distribution with the median voter somewhere at the thicker part of the distribution, hyper partisanship has resulted in a multi-peaked distribution. The median voter can theoretically be among a minority instead of from among the majority in such a distribution. In other words, the country lacks moderate voters from a national perspective. It has moderates within a partisan group, but that median voter and the median voter of another partisan group are too far apart.

Another way of looking at this is, the distance between parties on most issues is so far apart that there is hardly any intersection, the common ground that can bring them together on issues. But what is at the root of the problem is the leadership of political parties. Even if the electorate is fragmented, an outcome that is not inconsistent with democratic ideals, one expects the leadership of political parties to have the interest of the nation ahead of their own parties’ interests. That should form the intersection that binds parties together beyond the partisanship on where they stand on issues. That is what is missing today; leadership of parties have acted almost purely in the interest of their own parties, even in their own personal interest, instead of the national interest.

We have had two incidents recently that unfortunately illustrated this quite starkly. The first is the floods that hit the central part of the peninsula, specifically in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and parts of Pahang in the middle of December last year, which were worse than the 2014/15 floods in terms of fatalities.

The response by public authorities, be it in anticipating and preparing for it, during the floods and even in its aftermath, was dismal and apathetic. It makes one wonder where all the resources paid for by taxpayers have gone to, but the real failure was that of leadership. No one really took charge, although the structure and procedures were already in place, and managed the crisis in real time as it unfolded.

Even in the aftermath, politicians were unashamedly engaged in some sort of media circus, promoting themselves as disaster tourists instead of engaging in discussions on what went wrong, how to ensure a better response, and how to get the people affected back on track. By right, there should have been great embarrassment for both the political leadership as well as the civil service over the way the floods were handled, but there was no accountability. No consequences. Instead, there was partisanship; finger pointing and blaming political opponents. The country was probably so numbed by the over 30,000 Covid-19 deaths in the last two years that the death toll of 56 persons from the floods seemed to have been glossed over.

It was ordinary Malaysians, groups of individuals and various civil society organisations that acted in situ and in real time. Their organisation and resourcefulness stood in contrast to the response by the public authorities. Many travelled from great distances to help fellow Malaysians in need and funds were openly sourced through various means to help out. It all proves that the governmental response showed a failure of leadership, not one that demonstrated its capabilities and empathy with the populace.

To make matters even worse, the floods also revealed the extent to which our forests, as water catchment areas, have been cleared by logging. The scenes of massive logjams in flooded rivers, some unloading themselves onto villages downstream, were sad testimonies of things that had gone wrong. It was plain for all to see.

In another incident, a major law enforcement body, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, was embroiled in controversy, which should not be uncommon even when it involves the head of the organisation. It should have been a normal occurrence for which there should have been a transparent standard response to protect the image and integrity of the institution.

Again, nobody took charge. Neither political leaders in government nor the chief secretary as head of the civil service came out to protect the integrity of the public institution, not by passing judgement on the matter but by assuring the public of the due process for matters of that nature. In the public interest, they needed to show that the authorities would be transparent and exhaustive about how investigations would be undertaken, with proper disclosure along the way. That was not done. Whatever that was done seemed to focus on the individual and not on protecting the integrity of the institution as the primary objective. This resulted in the worsening of the situation and undermined the integrity of an important public institution. In fact, one can argue that the reputation of two key public institutions was unnecessarily damaged in this incident.

And when there were public protests on the matter, the reaction was excessive and totally disproportionate to the protests, thus inviting the conclusion that there was a cover-up. Worse, such an efficient and resource-heavy response to deter and counter the protests drew an inevitable comparison to the tepid response during the floods. All of these made things worse.

These are the results when every crisis and every decision is seen as a partisan contest, not a national crisis to be solved. This lack of intersection of common interests that is based on national interest is at the root of why we have weak ineffective governments, not just here but in many parts of the world.

The tendency of putting party above the nation and using the powers of government to achieve that outcome have always been present, but when there are no boundaries to that practice, everything will be about partisan interests and national interest becomes secondary. That has the effect of breaking down public institutions and, with that, public trust of public institutions and the political process. As a result, politicians are doing things to destroy their own image and the public perception of politics.

The electorate cannot create the required intersections to build a common ground, but what it can do is elect leaders who are willing to do so. They have to find the leaders who understand that partisanship is a means of staging a political contest to choose who will get to govern, but who recognises that governing is about protecting and furthering national interest. The absence of intersections will make these two interests mutually exclusive, which will be disastrous for the country as political leaders even when in the position of governing are only concerned with their partisan interests.

The post-Covid normalisation has started, and like any post-apocalyptic period, early moves matter significantly. The wrong moves now will lock us on a bad trajectory when things pick up on an altered landscape. The country needs leadership that understands the pain-gain trade-offs and makes the right moves, and that those trade-offs are primarily national ones, not partisan ones. Scarcity of fiscal resources will require prioritisation that is based on what is optimal for the country.

Normalisation of monetary policy will be another major challenge going forward and that requires a steady hand as it will have a significant impact everywhere, from the cost of fiscal policy to the cost of living. It is the kind of resoluteness that can only come from a clarity about what the national interests are and how to achieve them, including the cold assessment of the necessary costs and price to be paid. All of these require leadership that not only has the appetite for the challenges but is also willing to forge ahead based on what is good for the country.

Dr Nungsari A Radhi is an economist

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.