One has to praise the flexibility of PAS in adapting to Malaysian political reality and social development. In the 1982 election, 78 percent of PAS manifesto contents were about Islam. The leadership change from Malay nationalists to Islamists later that year marked the beginning of concerted efforts to reduce exclusiveness of its appeal.

In the last election, PAS finally revived the old tradition of nominating women candidates. One year after the ascension of the 'young moderate professionals' headed by Ustaz Nasharuddin Mat Isa, this year's muktamar, beginning today, will see another step forward - opening of the door to non-Muslims, a proposal coming from PAS spiritual adviser, Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat.

If this proposal is accepted, then all the major opposition parties will be (theoretically) multiethnic and multi-religious, posing a strong contrast to the ruling coalition whose three largest component parties are categorically mono-ethnic.

The Tok Guru's suggestion was said to have resulted from the encouraging response of non-Muslim voters in Sarawak's recently concluded state election. The question is then this - how effectively will the PAS membership help to attract non-Muslim voters?

If this means that PAS will transform into a Malaysian-Muslim equivalent of a Christian Democratic Party (what political scientists would call the 'denominational' variant of religious party that accepts pluralistic democracy, rather than a 'fundamental' one that seeks to redefine the state-society relations), the days of Umno's electoral hegemony are well numbered.

Is PAS making such a big leap for Malaysia's democratisation? PAS has first to decide whether to offer non-Muslim full membership or an associate membership.

If only associate membership is offered, PAS will immediately be accused of treating the non-Muslims as 'dhimmis', the second-class citizens in ancient Islamic empires. One wonders what kind of non-Muslims would be so interested to join a party where they are only welcome to pay subscriptions but not to vote, and what their motivation may be.

Surely, if they are genuinely attracted by PAS' struggle, they would soon embrace Islam and PAS will be continuously losing its non-Muslim faces. As desirable as it may be religiously, politically this will not help PAS and will instead frighten non-Muslims who may see it as a scheme of religious conversion.

Full membership will show more the sincerity of PAS to open up and allow the party better chances to attract more active and genuine supporters. Being full members, non-Muslims would have a say in deciding leadership at the grassroots as well as higher levels, provided their numbers are large and concentrated enough in certain branches.

The real test is then whether PAS would trust its non-Muslims enough to admit as many of them as are interested. Even the progressive Parti Rakyat in 1959, when considering admission of Chinese unionists from the banned National Union of Factory and General Workers, was apparently worried about intra-party racial balance.

If the proposal for accepting non-Muslim members is to alleviate the fear or distrust of non-Muslim voters, PAS perhaps should ask: 'Why is PAS not trusted by non-Muslims, more generally, non-Islamist voters in the first place?' If exclusivity of membership is indeed the cause, why do they not reject Umno which is almost completely all-Muslim (except for some Sabahan non-Muslims and Thai-Malaysians) as much as they reject PAS? On the other hand, has its acceptance of those few non-Muslims made Umno more popular amongst non-Muslims?

'We-won't-touch-you'

Voters make their choices based on both the benefits and costs. Partly thanks to the mainstream media but more because of its own choice, PAS' image is a largely that of a party of Islamisation and Islamisation only. PAS' strategy on non-Muslims has been (a) explaining that Islamisation the justice and fairness of the great religion - will benefit all communities; (b) when such explanation does not work, assuring the non-Muslims that they would be exempted the 'we-won't-touch-you' assurance which effectively means a 'one country many systems' (Chinese policy on Hong Kong) or a 'divide and rule' (British for its empire) policy if you like.

This strategy has worked very well on matters of cultural autonomy, ethnic equality and integrity. Increasingly more Chinese voters are convinced that compared to Umno, PAS is genuinely sympathetic to mother-tongue education (if it is only because of the marginalisation of religious schools), de-emphasising the bumiputera-non-bumiputera distinction in Kelantan, is more benevolent towards the plight of pig farmers and undoubtedly less prone to corruption and political rent-seeking.

This has persuaded a significant portion of non-Muslims to consider voting, at least tactically, for PAS over Umno or its allies. In 1999, a PAS candidate defeated the MCA in the Chinese-majority state seat of Kajang. It would not be surprising if history repeats in the future.

However, more non-Muslims are taken back by PAS's goal of Islamic state (no longer emphasised since 2004), its often controversial policy and views on religious freedom, morality and gender and the formalistic measures taken to make Kelantan or Terengganu look more Islamic (the latest example of which is the unconstitutional proposal to coin the dinar).

It is not only that they cannot intrinsically accept the patriarchal view of women or Puritanism ideal of public morality, it is also that they can hardly believe that the 'we-won't-touch-you' promise will be kept eventually. Historically, Umno's similar promise not to encroach the non-Malays' cultural and economic freedom was eroded almost immediately after independence and largely gone in 12 years with its guarantor, the Tunku.

PAS must do two things if it wants to appeal to non-Islamist votes. First, it must widen its appeal and articulate it in Malaysian rather than Islamist language. A good example is the current campaign against the petroleum price hike, in which Dr Hatta Ramli of PAS plays an instrumental role in disseminating information and organising demonstrations. One would also recall another successful example of pressing economic concern: the BA's shadow budget in 2000.

Secondly, PAS must change its lukewarm attitude to democracy and commit itself to push for Malaysia's democratisation. In liberal democracy, the religious right may be voted into power in coalition by some voters who are not religious or of different faiths, the best example being the Hindu-nationalist BJP which presided over the National Democratic Alliance government in India from 1998 to 2004.

Some readers may think that I have forgotten the fact that PAS has been pursuing power through constitutional means and contesting all 12 elections since 1955. No, but this is a weak defence for has Umno not done that too? What is PAS's merit over Umno's in this? If PAS is expecting democrats to vote intrinsically for its programme, rather than instrumentally, just to check Umno's hegemony (if they would), it must make genuine efforts to democratise Malaysia.
Promise ignored

The only institutional reform PAS has introduced to make governments more representative or accountable, to my knowledge, is the Suruhanjaya Hisbah (Ombudsman Commission). PAS promised this in its 1990, 1995 and 1999 (BA) manifestos and carried it out in Terengganu after 1999, to the credit of Tuan Guru Hadi Awang.

But none of the draconian laws the ISA, OSA, PPPA, UUCA, Police Act, Sedition Act, Societies Act, the Trade Union Act - have been repealed, nor the idea of the constitutional court as promised in BA 2004 manifesto been mooted in the recent debate on the Syariah Court's jurisdiction.

The above cannot be excused on the grounds that PAS, or BA, did not control the federal government and has no parliamentary majority to push through these reforms. Politics is often about gestures that signal your intentions.

In October 1999, PAS had only seven seats in the lower house but Tuan Guru Hadi Awang did not hesitate to table a private member's bill proposing a constitutional amendment to impose the death sentence for Muslim apostates. Similarly, criminal law and coinage are categorically assigned to the Federal List (Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution) but this has not stopped PAS' Kelantan government from proposing Hudud laws or the issuance of dinars.

But nothing compromises PAS' - and by extension BA's - credibility and congruence and casts doubt on their democratic commitment more than their pathetic disinterest in reviving local election. These were the coalition's words in 1999, under the heading of 'Towards Democratic and Just Politics': 'We seek to ... reintroduce elections for local government so that local leaders can be made accountable'.

In 2004, under the pledge to make 'Your government - Of the People' (Kerajaan Anda - Kami Rakyatkan), the coalition again promised to 'revive election of local government to ensure that the councilors be fully responsible and provide the best service to the population'.

Any obstacle posed by the Local Government Act 1976 is more imagined than real. Its section 10 only stipulates that the councillors' appointment is by the state authority but does not specify on what criteria the appointments must be made and this certainly does not rule out electoral popularity. Article 113 (4) of the Federal Constitution makes it clear that 'Federal or state law may authorise the Election Commission to conduct elections other than (parliamentary and state assembly ones)'.

The state government has clear jurisdiction on this, unlike criminal laws and currency, as local government is the fourth item on the State List. With a simple enactment passed in the state assemblies, the Kelantan and Terengganu people could have been voting for their local councillors since 2000. And PAS may still be controlling some local councils today in Terengganu.

If PAS prefers the difficult way of amending the Local Government Act 1976 (only involving Section 15), Article 95A of the Constitution has provided another channel for such reform - the National Council for Local Government. The Council, attended by representatives of every West Malaysian state plus the Local Government and Housing minister, is constitutionally required to meet at least once a year.

This means that since 1999, Tok Guru Nik Aziz has had at least six opportunities and Tuan Guru Hadi Awang at least four chances to propose local elections. In the five years from 1999 to 2004, the opposition has had a sizeable contingent of 42 parliamentarians to popularise the issue in the House with private members bills or other means. Have you read or heard anything happening?

Never too late

I am therefore puzzled why civil society has so far been largely lobbying only the BN government on local democracy. The BN is at least congruent on this issue: they are not democrats and don't pretend to be and they have never promised a revival of local elections since its abolishment in 1964. Instead, the opposition should be the first one to be held accountable as they have made the promise and still holds the key to kick start the reform in Kelantan.

If Kelantan had pursed local democracy as it did the hudud laws or dinars, the nation will be solidly backing PAS and BA now. There will be no international sympathy in blocking the Islamists' project. Kelantan will then not only be known as 'Serambi Mekah' (Mecca's Corridor) as it always has been, but also a 'Serambi Demokrasi' for Malaysia.

When the 'pak ciks' and 'mak ciks' in Kelantan's most remote villages are casting their third votes, how long more can BN deny the cell-phone-carrying, Internet-surfing, blog-writing citizens of Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Johor Bahru their right to vote in their representatives?

Is there then any better testimony that Islamist opposition can advance democracy more than pseudo-liberal 'moderate Muslim governments'? If Tok Guru becomes an icon of democratisation, and PAS has the chance to form municipal governments in the West Coast, wouldn't all these be more effective in winning over genuine non-Islamist voters rather than recruiting some token non-Muslim members?

I wonder why PAS has insisted on letting go the opportunity to steal the limelight for democratisation year after year. Neither has its allies and friends told them that inefficient, corrupt and unaccountable local councils are one of the reasons why BN loses its votes in urban centres.

It is never too late.

PAS can send a powerful message to the nation during the current muktamar. Local democracy can go hand-in-hand with the non-Muslim membership proposal, signaling PAS' coming of age as a pro-democracy, multi-ethnic, catch-all (socially) centre-right party for Malaysia, like the ruling Christian Democrats for Germany. Some of its future non-Muslim members can also start planning to contest local council seats under the PAS banner. Though not a pious man, I will pray for the wisdom and congruence of PAS leaders and members this week.


Religious freedom: A challenge to PAS

WONG CHIN HUAT is the chair for Writers Alliance for Media Independence (Wami). He currently reads politics at the University of Essex, UK.