A Riposte to Chandra Muzaffar's Anti-Bersih Opinion piece... by Dr Ronald McCoy

A Riposte to Chandra Muzaffar's Anti-Bersih Opinion piece

19^th July 2011

The Editor

The Star

Menara Star

15 Jalan 16/11

46350 Petaling Jaya

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest Dr Chandra Muzaffar’s views on the Bersih 2.0 rally, published in The Star on 13^th July. I had a sense that he’s not convinced of the need for electoral reform in Malaysia and not in favour of street demonstrations. As someone who felt a civic responsibility to support the goals of Bersih 2.0 and its rally on 9^th July, I would like to give you my own perspective on the importance of electoral reforms.  

Dr Chandra will recall that the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections did have discussions with the government-appointed Elections Commission on electoral reforms, without making any headway.  And when Bersih 2.0 was denied entry into Sarawak to observe the elections in April 2011, it became clear that it had hit a wall.  It therefore decided to rally public support for electoral reform by staging a peaceful solidarity walk to the palace to present a petition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agung on 9^th July.

But Bersih 2.0 made a strategic error when it invited all political parties to support its initiative. It was predictable that opposition political parties would support it, and government parties and groups like UMNO Youth and Perkasa would oppose it. The risk of a violent clash between opposing groups prompted the government to ban the peaceful street rally.

Dr Chandra will recall that both the Yang di-Pertuan Agung and the Prime Minister did advise that the rally be held in a stadium for security reasons, and Bersih 2.0 accepted this advice in good faith. But the Prime Minister remained silent, when the Home Minister trumped this advice by unleashing his arsenal of draconian laws and giving an ugly demonstration of a government’s ability to abuse power. His most outrageous act was to order the arbitrary arrest of six members of the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) under the Emergency Ordinance, including the highly respected MP for Sungai Siput, Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj. It will prove to be a very costly political blunder. Dr Chandra has rightly made the case for repealing and amending those laws.

I can vouch that the tens of thousands of Malaysians who thronged the streets of Kuala Lumpur on 9^th July behaved peacefully and were of good humour. There was no violence or vandalism. We were all Malaysians, without any ethnic baggage. We all knew why we were there. The use of chemically-laced water cannon and tear gas was unjustifiable. If Dr Chandra has any doubts about police misconduct, I clearly saw people being beaten and kicked, particularly when arrests were made.

A flawed electoral process

Dr Chandra’s view that “electoral reform, it is only too obvious, was just a smokescreen for a street demonstration” is hard to comprehend, until you read the next paragraph where he explains that “the ultimate objective is to propel to power the hegemon’s candidate for the Prime Ministership,” meaning Anwar Ibrahim. But his political vendetta with Anwar should not cloud his perception of the flawed state of the electoral process and the need for reform.

Machiavellian gerrymandering by the Elections Commission has created disparities between urban and rural constituencies which have worked in favour of the ruling BN government. The present form of postal voting allows the votes of police and military personnel to be collected and delivered to counting centres, without transparent oversight. The Elections Commission has been known for its amazing sleight of hand in producing postal votes just in time to save marginal seats for the BN. A clean election is characterised by a corruption-free electoral process, the absence of vote-buying, and an electoral roll, devoid of irregularities and cleansed of phantom voters. The use of indelible ink would help to eliminate multiple voting. It was abandoned four days before polling day in the 2008 general elections, although the ink had been purchased. Automatic registration of eligible voters is still not in force. Despite frequent requests and the availability of a national registration database, the young voter must sometimes feel disenfranchised. BN politicians continue to abuse government facilities and machinery for their campaigns, although the Elections Commission knows it is illegal. To ensure the integrity of elections, Bersih 2.0 has also demanded a minimum 21-day campaign period and free and equal access to the media to ensure a level electioneering field.                

Integrity of elections

The integrity of elections is a common challenge in many countries. Credible elections enhance democracy, justice and security. When elections are manipulated to gain or retain political power, voters lose faith and confidence in the electoral process, elected governments lose legitimacy, the promise of democracy remains unfulfilled, and human rights and human security are put at risk. Fraudulent elections are a theft of our rights as citizens.

While the primary responsibility for upholding the integrity of the electoral process rests with national leaders, local and international institutions can support local electorates in their efforts to make national leaders accountable, raise the political cost of electoral abuse, and reward those leaders who ensure the credibility of elections. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) could play such a role, if it were endowed with autonomy and executive power.

Credible elections, conducted with integrity, are inextricably linked to the exercise and promotion of human rights. Rights of assembly, free association, free speech, freedom from fear of arbitrary arrest, and the freedom to chose one’s leaders are all essential to the conduct of credible elections. When elections cannot provide a society with an effective check on political power, corruption becomes more endemic

The Elections Commission has shown an unwillingness to commit to international standards and principles; to engage seriously with key domestic actors, including civil society, and opposition legislators and political parties; and to build national institutions and local professional capacity. To have policy impact, the Commission should be honest and stringent in its analysis of electoral challenges and eschew vague, general measures that would prove ineffectual.

Democratic change in governments in authoritarian countries is usually a high-profile, high-stakes event, which promises major changes in the balance of political power and relations among different social groups. Faced with losing power at the ballot box, authoritarian incumbents may choose electoral fraud, intimidation, violence or the imposition of draconian emergency laws to stifle democratic change. And if and when elections do replace long-standing authoritarian governments, the survival of a new form of democratic governance is quickly put to the test, as we are seeing particularly in the state governments of Selangor and Penang.

It is important to convince different stakeholders why elections with integrity matter, not just for democracy, but also for justice, human security, human rights, and  economic development.  It is a step towards the equilibrium that Dr Chandra has alluded to.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ronald  McCoy