Across the straits, our neighbour Indonesia has been engaged in a sometimes painful, often exhilarating, process of political renewal. The up-coming presidential election, to be held later this year, reflects a new set of political values that nudged, indeed, pushed, the old 'new order' out of existence some years ago.

The dramatic social and political convulsions of that transition were in part a function of a system that could not re-negotiate its own limits, re-visit its assumption and re-engineer its self. Just south of us, in Singapore and north of us, in Thailand, re-engineering the system has been a fact of statecraft over the last decade.

The latter was pushed towards change by the democratic movement of 1992 and the crisis that precipitated it, whilst in Singapore the government sort to pre-empt dissent by establishing various channels for popular "feedback" and even developed an unconventional form of parliamentary representation, the non-constituency member of Parliament.

Malaysia has by contrast remained unchanging in this sea of democratic volatility. Is it a measure of our success? Does our version of the 'democratic process' deliver what the population wants?

Over the last four weeks we have attempted to re-open the debate on our electoral system and the democratic process that underpins it in a manner that engages the broadest segment of society. By walking through, conceptually, many of the limitations of the present system we hoped to stimulate a debate in which new approaches and perspectives can emerge; not for its own sake but in order to engage in the important task of regenerating the basis of political life in our nation. A task we feel is of some urgency.

The need for change is a feeling that is pervasive society. Perhaps it is a more educated population, one that is increasingly exposed to a globalised media, that underscores this dissatisfaction.

'Moral society'

Be this as it may, there has also been the lack of informed fora to discuss what it is we want a change in the system to achieve. In such fora we would ask questions related to those fundamental values which underpin our social, cultural and political life. If we want 'pluralism', 'equality' and 'justice', isn't a secular, democratic system an essential tool to that end?

Conversely what would a 'theocratic state' based on the leadership of an unelected clerical class, deliver to a multi-religious society such as ours? If we want to create a 'moral society' would we necessarily want to legitimise the use of police powers to achieve that end? As for elections, what kind of government do we want the electoral process to deliver? Are 'stability' and 'pluralism' incompatible ends? Would elections at more levels of governance, and over policy give us the 'consultative', 'participatory' and 'transparent' governance we want. Do we want the responsibility on our part as citizens that it entails?

In Malaysia our elections are characterised as 'first past the post'. Simply put, the candidate with the most votes wins. And this form of franchise applies only to the national Parliament, and the state assemblies once every five years (local council election being abolished, rather controversially, some decades ago). If one accepts this rather limited franchise one might still ask if the type of voting system is the best one possible.

In abstract the 'first past the post' system (FPTP) is said to have four distinct advantageous. It is said to promote greater accountability; it fosters durable coalitions and political stability; it encourages inter-ethnic and inter-religious conciliation because it provides inducements for moderate behaviour; and finally, it can provide minority representation through intentionally drawing constituency boundaries in the direction of greater homogeneity.

In our study we asked, how has the system worked in Malaysia and have these advantages been secured? On the question of 'greater accountability' we found that the virtual one-party system has meant that voters have very little real choice on who they want to represent them. And that often the arena for competition takes place at the party level rather than at the level of the election making the link between the MP and constituents tenuous at best.

On the question of 'durable coalitions and political stability', we found that the party that wins in the FPTP system often gets seats out of proportion the percentage of votes cast for it. While this might seem like a good thing to those who win, it proves itself to be a fickle friend since in the FPTP system, small swings in votes can translate into big swings in outcomes. For instance, the 1999 election had tremendous impact on representation in Terengganu. When the Barisan Nasional's share of the vote dropped 14 percent (from 54 to 40) its share of parliamentary seats fell from 87.5 percent to nil, and its presence in the state assembly went from 78 to 12.5 percent.

Additionally, with the disproportionate representation of the ruling coalition in Parliament it has been able to amend the constitution to its advantage. Here 'stability' has been ensured at tremendous cost to the very foundations of the nation.

As for 'inducements for moderate behaviour' the study came to the conclusion that the ruling elite has used its control over Parliament and re-drawn constituency boundaries to create more smaller size. Malay constituencies, which is disproportionate to the community's representation in terms of population. This distortion has altered the relationship within the ruling multi-ethnic coalition (establishing Umno's dominance) as well as inflating the significance of political competition within the Malay political community (especially rural) to the larger political system.

Powerful impetus

Paradoxically, there is in fact a powerful impetus, even if self-serving, for those in power to make the system fairer and more democratic. So if there was political will on the part of the ruling elite, and/ or popular demands on the part of the citizenry for change, what principles and values would guide us in re-making the system? Would we be re-making it in the image and spirit of the Merdeka Constitution? Are there constitutional innovations developed in other countries since that time, worth emulating? And do we have the institutional mechanisms to support and maintain such changes?

We concluded our study with a set of recommendations that collectively add up to a call for electoral reform. In our report we urged the government of the day to establish an independent election reform committee. The recommendations we had made within the report were not by any means exhaustive but instead suggestive of the broad areas that needed to be reviewed if there is to be genuine change. Parliamentary reform and regulations concerning political parties were not within the scope of the study but are undoubtedly important for future research.

The report's recommendations were divided into three sections and focused on the election system. The first, were a set of recommendations made regarding the management and conduct of elections, focusing on the laws concerning elections and the role of the Election Commission (EC). The second, referred to the appointment of the EC and its staff. And the third considered the limits of the FPTP system and suggested how changes could make the system fairer.

We were concerned with several amendments to the laws concerning elections over the recent years, which we felt could not be justified on basic democratic principles. Simply put these principles are: one-person, one vote; every vote should be of equal value, the vote should be secret, and that every effort should be made by those responsible for managing the elections to ensure that candidates compete on more or less equal terms, that is, 'a level playing field'. We hope to be given the space to enumerate these recommendations.

In conclusion, we believe that there is a need for an open debate, and one that engages both question of fundamental principles and values, as well as those that engages the specifics of the current system and proposed alternatives. Ours is just the opening gambit to an issue that should be central to any democratic society.

Yesterday: Assessing the election watchdog (Part 4)

This five-part series on elections were co-authored by Ikmas deputy director NORANI OTHMAN, Ikmas senior associate fellow MAVIS PUTHUCHEARY, Merdeka Centre's IBRAHIM SUFFIAN and freelance journalist SHARAAD KUTTAN.

Institut Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa (Ikmas) at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, is a social science research institute. Together with the generous assistance of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Ikmas has been conducting a study of the Malaysian electoral system for the past two years.