Since Malaysia’s independence, it has been ruled by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) party. The party was formed in 1946 as a nationalist party and in Malaysia’s first post-independence general elections, it won an absolute majority of seats in parliament. The UMNO has held power in Malaysia ever since, until the shocking elections of 2018. 

In these elections, Malaysia saw the incumbent party’s prime minister Najib Razak replaced by Mahathir Mohamad, the de facto leader of the Alliance of Hope group (Pakatan Harapan), with the Pakatan Alliance winning 121 of the 222 seats in the lower house.  Mohamad is no newcomer to Malaysian politics, having been one of the longest serving prime ministers and being 93 years old. Alliance of Hope is a diverse coalition of opposition parties with different ideologies and political bases. The party had a detailed manifesto that it claimed to be committed to, including raising the minimum wage and investigating the corrupt institutions. The results shocked many as the UMNO appeared to be wholly committed to never stepping down from power. 

For Malaysian voters, however, enough was enough. The party’s main leader Razak had been embroiled in a terrible corruption scandal. Razak was charged with stealing $4 billion in taxpayer money. Hundreds of millions of dollars from the state’s investment fund allegedly appeared in his personal account, which led even the US Department of Justice to investigate.  The Malaysian government has since responded by freezing his assets. The early democratization literature argues that a transition can take place when there is a split in the regime-defending elite, but it is not clear if Razak’s corrupt activities caused an elite split or if this recent mounting corruption scandal had become too much for voters to stomach. (For more on democratization see Chapter 2.)

In fact, for decades many Malaysians believed that the UMNO was the only party that could rule Malaysia, which has a complex demography. Malaysia is a multi-cultural society that is composed of a majority of Malays (around 60 per cent), and a mix of ethnic Chinese (23 per cent), and ethnic Indians (7 per cent). As Malays are considered to be the dominant group, they have been the beneficiary of affirmative action measures since the 1970s. Malays receive access to zero-interest loans, discount housing, and special places in universities, the security services, and the state. There are laws that also require that every company be 30 per cent owned by Malays. 

Though Malays have often benefited from the state at the expense of other groups, Malaysia is considered to be a model of how to peacefully manage ethnic and religious diversity. After independence led to a series of ethnic riots in 1969, measures were taken to ensure that Malaysia would remain stable. When the opposition denied the ruling coalition a super majority, political elites responded by manipulating the institutions.  Using the pretext of ethnic riots in Kuala Lumpur, the executive declared a state of emergency and shut down the parliament, only reopening it in 1971. The UMNO formed a coalition with Indian and Chinese parties in that same year, which became known as the Barisan coalition. Though this gave the appearance of power sharing, in essence the national legislature was dominated by a coalition of parties that was in turn dominated by UMNO. The Malaysian constitution had been amended more than 600 times, and to control the passing of legislation, the UMNO would push through bills that were several hundred pages long to be voted on in the same day. 

The UMNO ensured that the opposition had no chance of winning to due rampant gerrymandering. Larger urban areas tended to vote for the opposition but had less representation than the rural traditionally pro-government parts of the country. Spending levels increased towards the rural areas, which were traditional areas of support for the UMNO. Gifts and favours were given to rural voters before elections, and those who supported the opposition faced voter intimidation. The UMNO, which had developed significant corporate investments, became a machine for jobs and welfare. 

In addition to being able to influence voters, the UMNO also has ensured that the electoral playing field is not level. Potential opponents were often barred. The opposition also lacked media access, and what media access it was granted was affected by the fact the media was controlled by the UMNO government. Media that criticized the government could see their licences revoked. Most journalists engaged in self-censorship. The state-friendly media also offered favourable stories of the regime. 

Furthermore, constitutional rights are still diminished by draconian legislation.  One of the sticking point for many civil society groups is the country’s Sedition Act, which is a 1948 law that outlaws any speech deemed to foster ‘strife’.  In practice, this bars anyone from ever criticizing the ruling party. The courts are also uneven in their willingness to support citizens’ rights and the rule of law. The Malaysian judiciary is mostly deferential to the executive when deciding cases concerning public order.

For the most part, civil society groups have been under stress, but they have been able to make inroads through get-out-the-vote campaigns. Civil-society groups are working to expand their programmes and activities beyond liberal urban centres. Activists have pushed for reforms to allow for more time for parliamentary discussion. Activists have also pushed for overturning regulations that ban political activity on university campuses and for greater leeway for trade unions and labour groups to mobilize. Activists are also pushing for reforming the judiciary, which is currently appointed by the chief justice—himself a political appointee and UMNO loyalist.

One recent development is the 2018 pardoning of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim who served a five-year prison sentence on politically motivated charges. Time will tell if the 2018 election results will lead to growing spaces for civil society groups to flourish and increased civil liberties.

Critical thinking questions

• Why do you think the Malaysia regime was able to sustain itself for so long?
• Does the election of the opposition signal that Malaysia has democratized?  Why or why not?
• What aspects of Malaysia political system in the past were democratic, and which aspects were authoritarian?
• Are elections the best way for democratization to take place?  What are other ways in which democratization has happened?