Towards the closing hours of the nine-day election campaign for Indera Kayangan, the controversial 90-second Taliban clip appeared to have been revised sans the Taliban images and the street protests allegedly linked to the supporters of the deposed Anwar Ibrahim.

One hazards a guess if the earlier clip with dire warnings and images of a foreign invasion proved offending to friendly trading partners and advisedly withdrawn in the interest of friendly relations between states.

Change does not necessarily mean elections or a mere change of government. It may be fair to surmise that we have seen too many dogfights passing as elections, that we may wonder if the ballot-box is a useful indicator of anything but power and might. If the electoral process is to do its job, it must be free and fair.

What constitutes change for a robust democracy goes beyond elections. It would without a doubt, involve structural changes like reform of the electoral process. Such reforms might include the creation of alternatives to winner-take-all schemes, campaign financing and challenges to incumbents. As it is, people are already complaining that even if we can make a claim to a free and fair process, incumbents fail to inspire.

Hinge on our disillusionment

Structural changes would also involve exploring viable constitutional designs, legislative and parliamentary reform, a stronger bill of rights, democratic policing and the list goes on. The form, nature and priority of these explorations would hinge upon our experiences or if you like, our disillusionment.

If this looks like a lot of hard work, it is. We cannot expect change by teh tarek and talking about political education and running to the streets in political protest without concurrently working on concrete measures and campaigns. Change cannot be likened to the bulan yang jatuh ke riba. The moon (synonymous to good fortune) would not fall neatly onto our laps unless we work on it.

The work must be planned and not spontaneous or serendipitous. It must be carried out and sustained over a period of time in a systematic fashion and not erupt occasionally or sporadically in line with an election year. A strategy for change, in case we will be led astray, is not pro-opposition or pro-government. It is pro-democracy.

Change cannot be effected without participation, collaboration and mobilisation. This means all of us. In recent commentaries on constitutional designs, it was found that the powerful built-in mechanism in successful constitutional governments is public opinion. Though elusive, public opinion provides a controlling element in a constitutional system.

Which brings us back to the argument for freedom of speech and communication as a precondition of democracy. There must be institutionalised opportunities to engage in dialogue, not just to receive information and impart it. Speech and communication aimed at continued consensus on governmental objectives require freedom in relation to ongoing discussion rather than simply for the process of choosing governments.

Systematic clampdown on openness

If we claim to have a democratic and representative government, then it does not behove our leaders to systematically clampdown on openness of discourse in relations to government activities and other relevant matters.

Students in exercising symbolic free speech in protests against the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the University and University Colleges Act (UUCA) are disciplined, expelled, suspended and tried for illegal assembly.

Civil servants, including university lecturers and students are made or will be made to sign an undertaking on 'good behaviour'. Campus free speech is not only curtailed by UUCA and the undertaking of good behaviour, it is also being policed with encouragement from the executive to lodge police reports on 'anti-government' speech. We are rendered speechless by these shenanigans.

There is growing concern that national broadcast systems commercial media networks have become effective and powerful ideological institutions to serve the interests of the government in power and corporate interests which support it. These institutions manage public opinion or 'manufacture consent' (Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media).

If there is an immediate and accessible collaborative project towards building a greater democracy, it would have to be free speech. There are already several coalitions and joint action groups formed in the last five years on free media. We would have to come together to categorise the problem and locate a sustained and systematic strategy for democratic change.