opinion If 'national security' is an automatic term used by the ruling party to justify the Internal Security Act, it would seem that the word 'reform' or 'reformasi' is a favourite word used by the opposition to justify their existence on this earth.

However, looking back at recent events, one wonders if the word 'reform' has become just another cliche.

For example, did DAP delegates at the party's 13th triennial congress two weeks ago honestly believe that reform can take place with no structural or functional shifts within the party?

While the members clamoured for change and their leaders seemed determined to carry out those changes, some said that the clamouring was nothing more than worn-out rhetoric and changes which took place were nothing but cosmetic.

This is the fourth time in history that the DAP is speaking about reform. The first was in 1991, then in 1995 and 1999. The later two came after the party had lost heavily in the general elections.

After 10 years, many say that changes within the party must be 'real and substantial' and not just changes to the colour of one's pants!

Secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock said though switching the colour of the delegates' pants - from white to black - may be a small gesture, it was a start. Indeed, he is right.

However, frustrated members say DAP needs 'a paradigm shift'. And that means, a total revamp of the mind and soul of the party. They could also be right.

On the other hand, some party leaders say, "We cannot reform as we like. We need the co-operation of members and this co-operation takes time".

It is undeniable that the recent DAP congress has brought to light two stark realities. There are two important issues unresolved - internal leadership problems and the Islamic state controversy - and these two so-called liabilities have posed a hindrance to party reforms all these years.

Democracy's beauty invoked

One indication of any party's weaknesses is the strength of its Youth or Women's wing. DAP's Youth wing has been dormant for five years at least.

Youth chief Teng Chang Khim's call for the party's chairperson Lim Kit Siang to decline nomination for the top post this year is an indication that the young Turks within the party have become restless with the so-called 'overbearing' influence of the old guard.

But party leaders counter argue: "Who says reform cannot take place with the old guard back in the central executive committee?"

There are no examples to look at, really. Everyone's looking back at the past 10 years, asking: What has the party achieved thus far - after three attempts at reform?

Party leaders attribute their failure to external factors but younger leaders disagree, saying, the party must strengthen its grassroots to face whatever challenges ahead - whether it is Barisan Nasional propaganda, a spilt within the party or the Islamic state controversy.

What remains clear is that asking older leaders to leave, particularly those who have 'hogged the helm' for decades, is not a plausible solution as they will merely say their political future is up to the delegates, invoking 'the beauty of democracy'; in other words, they will refuse to give up their seats of power.

Many leaders do it. They come from all types of political parties. And politicians know that after some time, they can predict the outcome of their annual general meetings or congresses because they have learnt to read the minds of those they've governed all those years.

As it turned out, DAP delegates returned the CEC with very minor changes. Most of the members retained their previous positions.

Torn apart

However, leaving one's political future in the hands of delegates amounts to denying the possibility that many Malaysians are still governed by a feudal kind of mentality or have a blind loyalty towards party elders.

By not declining nomination when the time is right, they come close to admitting that there is no one else who is qualified enough to lead the party.

However, it is wrong to think that there is no one better than the existing leaders. The fact is that there are people out there, potential leaders, who need an opportunity to flex their muscles. No one is indispensable, they say. Especially in a political party.

But is the time right? With the Islamic state controversy, DAP members say, perhaps not. There are fears within the party, even among the top leaders, that this problem may split the party. It is then impossible for leaders like Lim Kit Siang to give up his post at this juncture. As the saying goes, a captain should always be the last to leave the ship.

Furthermore, this conflict with opposition ally PAS was so important that delegates deliberated on it for nine hours during the two-day congress, blocking out any opportunity for debating other issues such as limitation of the party's top post to three terms or nine years as proposed by one of the branches.

For better or for worse, the Islamic state issue has been stretched to the extreme and it seems to have done only one thing - tear the Barisan Alternatif apart.

Very few people appreciate the dynamics of democracy that is taking place between these four opposition parties, with Keadilan and PRM being the other two partners.

However, after so much mud-slinging in the media between PAS and DAP, one wonders if the coalition is still intact.

Relationship cherished

DAP seems adamant on leaving the front yet dreams of maintaining some kind of relationship with its former partners. Party leaders say a majority would have voted to quit the BA and that the DAP is confident of going at it alone.

Why was there a need then to pass the buck back to the CEC? Why didn't the DAP delegates decide once and for all the party's stand on the Islamic state issue and BA?

It seems as if delegates were merely given a chance to let off steam, to express their grouses about the issue and how it has been handled. The CEC seems to be in a perpetual dilemma.

They are not willing to face the possibility that by quitting the BA they stand to lose Malay or Muslim supporters who might think that the party is anti-Islam. Also, a substantial number of non-Muslims have worked closely with PAS and do not mind its presence.

They is also a group of people who think that the whole idea of an Islamic state is an impossibility. This group also thinks that the DAP is merely making a big fuss in order to divert attention from its own internal problems.

In reality, the CEC itself is split in so many ways with regard to the issue. There are extremes like the views of deputy chairperson Karpal Singh and life adviser Dr Chen Man Hin who want to quit BA regardless of the repercussions.

There are others within the fold who still believe in negotiation. There are some who cannot seem to make up their minds and who still cherish the relationship with PAS.

It is clear that the party wants an amicable divorce which may allow it to maintain its relationship with PAS and not risk losing Malay or BA supporters.

Whatever the stakes are, people are beginning to weary of this charade. It is a wonder whether all this brouhaha will help the cause of social democracy that the DAP claims to be fighting for.

It also does not seem to help salvage the 1999 election manifesto that the DAP leaders say PAS has violated by insisting on setting up an Islamic state should it come to power.

Keadilan and PRM's extended silence on the Islamic state concept has pushed DAP further into a corner. It's not a win-win situation for the DAP - the damage has been done - whatever its CEC decides finally on the issue at its meeting today.

SUSAN LOONE is a malaysiakini journalist.