Why is changing who governs different from changing how power works?

Question

Accepted Answer

Changing Who Governs is Distinct from Altering How Power Operates

Altering the individuals or coalitions in government does not inherently transform the fundamental mechanisms and ingrained practices through which power is exercised. Malaysia's political landscape since 2018 has demonstrated a recurring pattern where new administrations inherit and often perpetuate established methods of governance, irrespective of their reformist rhetoric. This divergence arises because the structures, bureaucratic inertia, and unwritten rules that define "how power works" are more deeply entrenched than the occupants of political office.
Persistence of Governance Habits Despite Leadership Changes

Since 2018, Malaysia has experienced frequent changes in government and considerable political upheaval, with old coalitions dissolving and new ones forming. Despite this dynamism, certain ingrained habits of political life have proven remarkably resistant to change. A new coalition can readily adopt the existing ways of governing, and even reformist governments may find themselves utilizing the same tools they once criticised when in opposition. This suggests that the systemic functioning of power transcends the specific party or leader in charge.
Institutional Behaviour and Political Tactics Remain Constant

Institutions may adopt different rhetoric or present a new public face, but their underlying behaviour can remain largely unchanged. Politicians who once advocated for greater openness may discover the advantages of maintaining control once they attain power. Similarly, those who previously lamented being silenced might become less receptive to dissent when it is directed at them. This adaptive nature of political actors and institutions demonstrates how established practices can persist across different administrations.
The Entrenchment of Power Dynamics Beyond Officeholders

The phrase "how power works" encompasses more than just who holds ministerial positions or parliamentary seats. It includes the subtle, often unarticulated, ways in which decisions are influenced, agendas are set, and public discourse is shaped. This can involve bureaucratic processes, the influence of entrenched interests, or the normalization of certain political tactics that continue to operate regardless of the governing coalition. The article implies that the power to influence public behaviour extends to making people self-censor, a phenomenon that transcends any single government.
Habitual Caution as a Mechanism of Enduring Power

Over time, individuals and society at large can develop habits of caution, learning when to speak, when to remain silent, and when to avoid certain topics. This learned behaviour, while sometimes a sensible survival tactic, can inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of existing power structures. When objecting becomes perceived as pointless, inconvenient, or dangerous, power can continue to operate with less resistance, independent of who is officially governing. This normalization of caution makes it difficult to recognise the political implications of inaction.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why is changing who governs different from changing how power works?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends