Why are coalition changes in Malaysia often framed as betrayal?

Question

Accepted Answer

Coalition Shifts in Malaysia Are Interpreted as Betrayal Due to a Conception of Power Rooted in Ownership and Obligation

The frequent framing of coalition changes in Malaysia as acts of betrayal stems from a fundamental understanding of political power not as a temporary mandate from citizens, but as a relationship of ownership and obligation. When political allegiances shift, such changes are consistently condemned as treachery, or khianat, rather than being presented as mere political disagreement or strategic realignment. This narrative is deeply entrenched in Malaysian political discourse.
The Pervasive Language of Khianat

The word khianat, signifying betrayal, is a recurrent theme in Malaysian political conversations, transcending both Malay and English language discussions. For instance, when legislative support was withdrawn from the Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar in April, the move was denounced as an "act of betrayal" by Pakatan Harapan, rather than being discussed as a constitutional manoeuvre or a breakdown in coalition bargaining. Similarly, after PAS formally ended its cooperation with Bersatu, the subsequent actions led to accusations of khianat. This rhetoric is not incidental; it reveals the underlying norms that shape the interpretation and justification of coalition shifts.
Power as Ownership and Obligation, Not Mandate

Political alliances in Malaysia are often presented as more than temporary collaborations. They are frequently narrated as relationships built on trust, debt, and reciprocal obligation, where coalition partners are expected to adhere to an unwritten hierarchy of loyalty. This dynamic bears resemblance to the logic of patrimonial and neo-patrimonial systems, where political authority operates through personal networks and relies on expectations of fidelity, even when formal institutions exist. In such contexts, the collapse of an alliance is perceived not merely as a strategic adjustment but as a violation of the relationship that underpins access to power.
The Role of Amanah and Selective Accusations

The term amanah further intensifies this moral dimension, suggesting a responsibility held in custody with ethical or even sacred undertones. Violating an amanah thus becomes more than a political miscalculation; it is a betrayal of a profound obligation. However, the distinction between legitimate political adjustment and illegitimate khianat is consistently drawn in a selective manner. The accusation of betrayal serves a political function, legitimising one network's claim to loyalty while criminalising a rival network's efforts to reorganise power. This transforms contests over office, patronage, and institutional control into a narrative of virtue versus treachery, allowing political actors to bypass explanations rooted in material concerns such as leadership ambitions or resource allocation.
Political Organisations as Property

A deeper issue lies in the consistent treatment of political organisations as forms of property. Leaders act as if they own their parties, parties act as if they possess their constituencies, and coalitions act as if they hold the votes cast for them. Institutions are approached as assets to be inherited or transferred through elite negotiations. This perception makes defections easily interpretable as theft or betrayal, as the departing politician is seen to have taken something that rightfully belonged to the organisation. This language obscures the democratic principle that elected representatives do not own their seats, parties do not own voters, and coalition leaders do not possess permanent rights over public institutions. Power is held conditionally, dependent on citizen endorsement. The politics of khianat therefore shifts the focus from accountability to voters towards fidelity among elites, re-imagining the primary political relationship as one between patron and follower, or party and component party, rather than between representative and citizen.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why are coalition changes in Malaysia often framed as betrayal?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends