Elections and divorces: Hoodwinked, healing, helping

JUNE 3 — “If more politicians in this country were thinking about the next generation instead of the next election, it might be better for the United States and the world.” — Claude Pepper.

The closely-contested general election is over in Malaysia, but the charismatic Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim continues to hold court with the media, lead rallies and press the cause of a stolen election as his party won the popular vote.

The RM64,000 question

Should Anwar accept the election results, with the understanding that in the court of public opinion in Malaysia and with his large following overseas, he is the “winner” as he single-handedly almost willed a victory against insurmountable odds — a better-funded party with control of the media? 

Thus, he has a strong foundation to build upon for future generations in GE14 with the carry-over momentum from GE13.

It may well be reasonable to expect Malaysia to have a new party leading the country since the country’s independence!

Or should he continue the post-election reform fight for justice and possibly lose some/much of the goodwill he built for himself and his coalition party? 

Has the Malaysian (wo)man on the street moved on to expect the trickle-down deliverables Datuk Seri Najib Razak promised on crime, corruption, education, etc.? Yet Anwar is stuck in the political quicksand of a personalised fight. 

Put differently, is the continued contesting of elections in the best interest of the country and its people?

Elections and divorces

Are there some parallels between contested elections and bad divorces? Should not the focus be on the children of feuding parents and populace of feuding politicians?

Let’s assume Anwar (PKR) is the father, Najib (BN) is the mother and the country/populace are the children,  

The contested GE13 results are like a bad divorce: in-your-face, heated, ugly, mud-slinging with personal attacks, statistics out of context and so on. 

There was the usual negative campaigning, unfit to raise the children or unfit to (continue) to lead the country, rather than positive campaigning of “my mission and vision” on the future of the children and increasing employment, gross national income, etc.

The standard test for parents or politicians is or should be “best interest of the children or populace/country,” respectively, in divorces or elections. 

The unilateral post-decision “fighting” may cause more harm than good as the children/populace/country are in a state of suspended animation and cannot move on.

Do the advisers of the runner-up and family/friends of the losing parent have the responsibility to tell them it’s time to “move on” so that they can prepare to fight another day or start a new life?

Refutable assumption

It’s an almost irrefutable assumption that in the best interest of a child, he/she should be with the mother. However, it is a refutable assumption that the incumbent party’s re-election is in the best interest of the populace/country.

Thus, the divorce proceedings, much like the election campaigning, allow each side to present (hopefully) hard evidence to a judge or the electorate of being fit to raise the children or run the country. 

But the reality of the situation is there is much airing of dirty laundry involving digging up of dirt, infidelity and integrity attacks, drama, “smoking gun” and so on.

Yes, there will be mistakes made along the way, be it interpretations or voting irregularities. However, one hopes they are not outcome determinative. Obviously, an appeals process and an “independent” Election Commission can act as safety nets to undo grave mistakes.

The decision

When the judge’s decision is finally made and the votes are counted, there must be a winner and a runner-up, and, theoretically, the “healing and helping” process commences as the best interest of the children/country is paramount.

The best interest of the child/country implies (1) the winner extends his hand to the counter-party to work together, and (2) the runner-up (bitterness aside) “promises” to support and work together for a brighter future. 

The irony of the situation is the dignity and character of the “runner-up” is more scrutinised than the humility of the winner, as the former can undermine and/or hijack the outcome when “de facto campaigning” takes place.

For example, if post-election opposition rallies become smaller and fewer, it implies people have generally moved on and are willing to work with the newly-elected government (which is on probation). 

Furthermore, the garnered goodwill may be slowly eroding to the point where some of the runner-up party voters may either switch parties or not vote at all during the next election.

Post-decision

In the case of the divorce, the spouses have an opportunity to marry again (not always), but, more importantly, are better informed about what they want and do not want in a future partner. Furthermore, the children have hopefully transitioned and adjusted to new expectations from the (once) feuding parents.

In the case of an election, the runner-up undertakes a post-mortem analysis of what worked and did not work; hence, preparation for the next (Malaysian) election starts after accepting the results.

Five years is a long slog, hence, time enough to convince voters to switch parties, make an impression on newly-registered voters (youth), etc., based upon positive campaigning.

After the election, the court of public opinion will soon make the distinction of whether the runner-up wants to undo election results (interest of the politician) or prepare for the next elections (interest of country).

(It is not reasonable for the runner-up in the post-election period to try to plant seeds of an Arab Spring moment. The Arab Spring was an overthrow of “democratically elected dictators”, followed by chaos, and now controlled chaos in places like Egypt and Libya. Malaysia is a democratically mature country vis-à-vis Arab Spring countries, hence, no need for an ASEAN Spring.)

Conclusion

The comment, possibly somewhat out of context, of former US President Gerald Ford summarises the philosophy of looking ahead based upon “togetherness” as the best interest of the populace (and children).

“Even though this is late in an election year, there is no way we can go forward except together and no way anybody can win except by serving the people’s urgent needs. We cannot stand still or slip backwards. We must go forward now together.”

Anwar and Najib, GE14 is more about the next generation and less about the next election!

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.