Um...no reform?

In 2000, Kuomintang lost power for the first time in Taiwan’s postwar history.

In wilderness, the party, having fled mainland China and ruled the island nation with an iron fist for more than five decades, went through an agonising journey of soul-searching, seeking to make itself relevant again in Taiwanese politics.

Kuomintang’s eight-year purgatory finally paid off. Two weeks ago, the party’s presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou defeated Frank Hsieh of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and emerged victorious with a clear majority.

It was not an easy, for without the reform process, Kuomintang would not have regained the trust of the Taiwanese electorate.

Despite suffering heavy losses in the 12th general election last month, the component parties of the Barisan Nasional are still in a state of denial about their pyrrhic victory.

Both Gerakan and the MCA point their fingers at Umno, but refuse to acknowledge their own failings. Ong Ka Ting cannot bring himself to admit his high-handedness in the candidate selection process was responsible for the party’s catastrophic performance, while Gerakan seems to attribute its unprecedented electoral disaster to Umno ultras without seeing that its misfortunes had started with the power-hungry Dr Lim Keng Yaik, who practically turned the party into a political clown.

As they are busy with the blame game, Umno itself is reeling from the shocking results. Nearly one month after the elections, the Umno leadership remains bogged down by a host of intra-party conflicts, the latest being whether or not the so-called quota system for party election should be abolished.

The Malay party is now in dire need of reinventing itself, and much more so than any other BN components. For that to happen, new talents must be identified. But the current system serves as a hindrance to this process.

Rewind to 1987

Let’s begin with some history. After the bitterly contested party elections in April 1987, in which the then incumbent president Dr Mahathir Mohamad defeated his challenger Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah by a razor-thin majority of 43 votes, Umno was split down the middle.

Worst, the party was ruled illegal by the High Court in early 1988. Mahathir swiftly founded Umno Baru out of its ashes and introduced the so-called "bonus system" to consolidate his presidency. For each nomination from a party division for the position of party president, a candidate would get 10 "bonus" nominations. It sort of ensured Mahathir’s uninterrupted rule for the next decade.

Mahathir again changed the rules and introduced a "minimum nomination system" in the wake of the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998. Under the new rules, a presidential candidate must secure at least 30 percent of nominations from all party divisions.

Justifying the party’s constitutional amendments, Mahathir repeatedly said the system would respect the wishes of Umno's grassroots and make sure only serious challengers were nominated. But we would do well not to fall for his doublespeak.

Would it not be more democratic had the party instituted an OMOV (one-member-one-vote) ballot, as is the case with the Kuomintang of Taiwan? Quite clearly, democratic mandate was the last thing on his mind, or Mahathir would have been swept from power given the waves of anger at his autocratic rule at the time.

As Hwang In-won, a watcher of Malaysian politics, has written, the former leader was determined to nip in the bud any move to challenge him by Anwar’s supporters within the party. This can also be seen in Mahathir’s postponement of the triennial party elections for up to 18 months, ample time for him to clean the party of Anwar’s influence.

Because of all these hurdles that give disproportionate advantage to the incumbent, Umno has not seen a meaningful leadership challenge since 1987. Lest we forget, Tengku Razaleigh only had 20 nominations, but he managed to mount a challenge against Mahathir. Today, the Umno veteran must garner at least 58 nominations before any move to unseat Abdullah is deemed feasible, and the democratic tradition within the party has eroded over the years.

Meanwhile, Mahathir’s habitual stifling of dissent has also resulted in Umno's dearth of talented and visionary leaders. Abdullah and his team of bad advisors merely survive on the former leader’s legacy.

Blessing for the nation?

Bitter and resentful, Mahathir now calls for the system to be abolished because he sees it as an obstacle to toppling Abdullah. Najib Abdul Razak, deputy president and the man best-placed to do the job, is hesitating probably because he has some unremovable stains on his shirt that make him beholden to the Abdullah faction.

One must also not overlook the fact that the successive Umno leadership have resorted to "no contest" resolutions in regard to the two top party posts, all in the name of "party unity". This "tradition" ought to be broken because it only fosters feudalistic practices within the party.

After all, Umno unity is premised on electoral wins and economic gains. When either of these is under threat, the cracks within the party show. It now faces myriad problems, the bended nomination rules being just one of them. To move forward, the party has to open up the space for dissent and criticism by nurturing a culture of genuine and democratic debate so that members are bold enough to air their views and concerns without fear and favour. So, no pledge of loyalty to the leaders and no gag order, please.

However, by keeping things unchanged, Abdullah is only sending the signal that he does not genuinely desire reform but wants to protect those with vested interests.

That will be a nightmare for the party, for sure. But a blessing for the nation, perhaps?