By Philip Bowring International Herald Tribune.
KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia's situation is not as simple as U.S. Vice President Al Gore painted it in his stunning speech on Monday.
He compared it with the ''people power'' revolution in the Philippines, which overthrew Ferdinand Marcos, the reformasi movement in Indonesia, which caused President Suharto to quit this year, and the doi moi reforms in Vietnam. He praised the ''brave people'' of Malaysia who call for change, and implied that lack of democracy was the key problem.
A groundswell of Malaysian opinion desires change, and street demonstrations are a legitimate form of expression. The arrest of Anwar Ibrahim fanned smoldering resentment against Mahathir bin Mohamad's increasingly autocratic behavior.
But people power in Manila was a response to Mr. Marcos's use of electoral fraud. Reformasi in Indonesia was a response to the lack of popular participation in the fossilized political process, as well as to the abuse of power for family enrichment. Doi moi was not a popular movement at all, but an attempt by the Communist Party to keep political dominance by allowing some economic liberalization.
Malaysia's democratic process is seriously flawed. There are severe constraints on the press, resulting as much from ownership as from direct government intervention. There is legal harassment of many opposition politicians, restrictions on political meetings and all manner of pressures and petty devices against those who challenge the ruling coalition led by the United Malays National Organization.
However, Malaysia does still have elections. It does still have opposition parties that can organize, speak and publish. Indeed, the threat to Mr. Mahathir comes less from the protesters on the streets than from the voters.
There may be no realistic likelihood that the governing coalition can lose a national election, even now. But Malaysian politics is about the relative size of the vote for the government parties and the main opposition groups, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party and the predominantly Chinese Democratic Action Party.
There must be a national election within 18 months, and UMNO is running scared of the Islamic Party in particular. Loss of a significant chunk of Malay votes could easily cause the coalition to lose its two-thirds majority in Parliament, and control of some state assemblies.
UMNO is in business to win. Mr. Mahathir has a tight grip on the party leadership for now, but if the grass roots decides that he has become a liability, it will find a way to ditch him.
Mr. Anwar's reformist credentials are mixed. His liberal rhetoric and criticism of cronyism must be contrasted with his behavior in office. As finance minister, he helped set up politically based business groups allied to him. Critics say he did not do much to blunt Mr. Mahathir's authoritarian instincts.
Many Malaysians still see events as a personal quarrel, a struggle for power between the incumbent and his ambitious former protégé. Still, Mr. Anwar's treatment has sparked demands for reform, which needs to be about three main things:-
Giving more political space to opposition parties and independent media.
-
Restoring the reputation of the judiciary (and the bureaucracy) for independence from the politicians.
-
Curbing ministerial powers of patronage - which is easier said than done, given the generally accepted need for a government role in increasing Malay ownership of business.
Malaysia may well be better off with a new helmsman who recognizes what has gone wrong. But it needs to reform the operation of the existing structure rather than throw it out and start again, as was necessary in the Philippines and Indonesia, where constitutional avenues for change did not exist. In Malaysia they still do. Let them work.