What is the core issue with treating political parties as property?

Question

Accepted Answer

Political Parties Are Not Property to Be Owned or Controlled

The core issue with treating political parties as property is that it fundamentally distorts the nature of political power and representation, shifting focus from accountability to citizens towards fidelity among political elites. This perspective leads to elected officials and parties acting as if they possess inherent rights over seats, voters, and public institutions, rather than holding power conditionally based on public trust.
Power is Imagined as Ownership, Not a Mandate

In Malaysian politics, power is frequently conceptualised not as a temporary mandate granted by citizens, but as a form of ownership or an asset to be guarded and transferred. Leaders may claim ownership of parties, parties may claim ownership of constituencies, and coalitions may claim ownership of votes. This perception means that when politicians switch allegiances, their actions are often condemned as theft or betrayal, termed 'khianat', because they are seen as taking something that rightfully belongs to the organisation. This language obscures the democratic principle that power is held conditionally and shifts attention away from accountability to voters towards loyalty among elites.
Defections Framed as Betrayal Undermines Accountability

The repeated use of the vocabulary of 'khianat' (betrayal) reveals an underlying norm where political alliances are narrated as relationships of trust, debt, and reciprocal obligation, rather than as temporary collaborations based on policy or electoral incentives. When allegiances shift, it is rarely framed as a strategic realignment or political disagreement. Instead, it is moralised as disloyalty, such as the withdrawal of support from a Menteri Besar by assemblymen, which was denounced as an "act of betrayal." This framing transforms contests over office and institutional control into moral dramas of virtue against treachery, allowing political actors to avoid explaining material reasons like leadership ambitions or seat allocations by recasting the conflict as a test of character.
Elite Networks Determine Power Usage, Not Voters

This property-like view of political parties leads to a situation where elections primarily determine the numerical distribution of seats, but it is ultimately elite networks that dictate the meaning and use of those seats. Elected representatives do not own their seats, parties do not own voters, and coalition leaders do not inherit permanent rights over public institutions. All hold power conditionally, contingent on continued public support. The emphasis on 'khianat' thus inverts the primary political relationship, portraying it as one between patron and follower, or leader and faction, rather than between representative and citizen.
Competition Becomes About Control, Not Vision

The implication for future elections, such as GE16, is that political competition is increasingly organised around rival claims of ownership over parties, constituencies, coalitions, and the state itself. Consequently, the most consequential decisions may continue to be made beyond the ballot box through negotiations among political elites who treat alliances and voter blocs as assets. This hollows out political competition, as major blocs compete for electoral authorisation to consolidate their control over the state rather than contesting fundamentally different projects for the country. A functioning democracy requires parties to explain their intentions for power and the interests they will serve, questions that the politics of 'khianat' tends to evade.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What is the core issue with treating political parties as property?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends