Why are political parties treated as property in Malaysia?

Question

Accepted Answer

Political Parties in Malaysia Are Perceived as Property Due to a Deep-Seated Logic of Ownership and Obligation

Political parties and institutions in Malaysia are frequently treated as forms of property, with leaders acting as if they own the parties, parties claiming ownership of constituencies, and coalitions assuming they possess the votes previously cast for them. This perception leads to institutions being viewed as assets to be inherited, guarded, or transferred through elite negotiations, fundamentally shaping the discourse around political allegiances and power.
The Pervasive Language of Betrayal (Khianat)

The recurring use of the term khianat, meaning betrayal, in Malaysian political discourse highlights this underlying logic. When political shifts occur, such as defections or the dissolution of alliances, they are often framed not as policy disagreements or strategic realignments but as acts of treachery. This language is employed because power is commonly understood not primarily as a temporary mandate from citizens, but as a relationship of ownership and obligation. For instance, when 14 Negeri Sembilan assemblymen withdrew support from the Menteri Besar, the move was denounced as an "act of betrayal" rather than a constitutional manoeuvre or a breakdown in coalition bargaining. Similarly, the end of cooperation between PAS and Bersatu, followed by PAS's support for a new party within Perikatan Nasional, was met with accusations of khianat.
Political Relationships Beyond Representative-Citizen Dynamics

This perspective shifts the primary political relationship away from one between a representative and a citizen. Instead, it is often imagined as a dynamic between a patron and a follower, a leader and a faction, or a coalition and its component parties. This resembles the characteristics of patrimonial or neo-patrimonial systems, where formal institutions exist but political authority operates through personal networks, reciprocal protection, and expectations of fidelity. In such a context, the collapse of an alliance is not merely a strategic realignment but a violation of the relationship that sustains access to power. The concept of amanah, or a responsibility held in custody with ethical overtones, further intensifies this moral register, making the violation of such an obligation akin to betrayal.
The Functional Role of Accusations of Betrayal

The accusation of khianat serves a political function by legitimising one group's claim to loyalty while criminalising a rival group's attempt to reorganise power. It transforms contests over office, patronage, and institutional control into a drama of virtue versus treachery. This rhetoric allows political actors to avoid articulating the material reasons for ruptures, such as leadership ambitions, seat allocations, or access to resources, by recasting the conflict as a test of character. This is evident in how coalition changes are interpreted and justified, with shifts often narrated as relationships of trust and debt rather than strategic or ideological choices.
Implications for Electoral Competition

The implication for future elections, such as GE16, is that political competition becomes 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 through elite negotiations beyond the ballot box, concerning coalition formation, leadership succession, seat allocation, and institutional control. While elections may determine the numerical distribution of seats, the meaning and use of those seats remain largely dictated by elite networks who treat alliances and voter blocs as assets to be retained, inherited, traded, or reclaimed. This dynamic hollows out electoral competition, shifting the focus from contesting different visions for the country to consolidating control over state apparatus.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why are political parties treated as property in Malaysia?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends