Why do coalition splits get framed as treachery instead of strategy?

Question

Accepted Answer

Coalition Splits Are Framed as Treachery Due to Underlying Norms of Ownership and Obligation

Coalition splits in Malaysia are frequently described using the vocabulary of betrayal, or "khianat," rather than as strategic realignments. This rhetoric is not incidental but reveals deeper norms where political power is interpreted and justified through concepts of ownership, debt, and reciprocal obligation. In this political landscape, alliances are often narrated as relationships of trust and fidelity, resembling patrimonial systems where authority operates through personal networks rather than purely ideological or strategic choices. The term "amanah," signifying a responsibility held in custody with ethical or sacred overtones, further intensifies this moral register, framing deviations not as political calculations but as violations of fundamental obligations.
The Pervasive Language of "Khianat"

The term "khianat" is consistently used in Malaysian political discourse when allegiances shift, overshadowing discussions of policy, manifestos, or platforms. 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, after PAS ended its cooperation with Bersatu, its subsequent support for a new party within Perikatan Nasional led to accusations of "khianat." This moralisation transforms potential constitutional or strategic discussions into dramas of virtue versus treachery.
Power as Ownership and Obligation

This framing stems from a political logic where power is conceptualised not as a temporary mandate from citizens, but as a form of ownership and a web of obligations. Political struggles are frequently less about policy or ideology and more about entitlement to control coalitions, inherit vote banks, command institutions, or claim the loyalty of a political community. This perspective aligns with patrimonial and neo-patrimonial systems, where formal institutions exist but political authority is exercised through personal networks and expectations of fidelity. The collapse of an alliance is thus perceived as a violation of the relationship that sustains access to power.
The Political Function of Accusations

The accusation of betrayal serves a crucial political function: it legitimises one network's claim to loyalty while criminalising a rival network's attempt to reorganise power. This rhetoric allows political actors to circumvent the need to explain the material reasons behind ruptures, such as leadership ambitions, seat allocations, or access to resources. Instead, conflicts are reframed as tests of character, transforming contests over office and patronage into moral narratives. This obscures the democratic principle that elected representatives, parties, and coalition leaders hold power conditionally and are accountable to citizens.
Shifting Focus from Citizens to Elites

A core issue is that political organisations are frequently treated as forms of property. Leaders claim ownership of parties, parties claim ownership of constituencies, and coalitions claim ownership of votes. This perception leads to defections being easily described as theft or betrayal, as the departing politician is seen as taking something that rightfully belonged to the organisation. Consequently, attention shifts away from accountability to voters and towards fidelity among elites. The primary political relationship is imagined as one between patron and follower, or leader and faction, rather than between representative and citizen, thereby diminishing the influence of the electorate on the meaning and use of political power.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why do coalition splits get framed as treachery instead of strategy?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends