Malaysia: Competitive Authoritarianism or Authoritarian Democracy?

Nurhani Abd Muis | 2991 17 2024

MALAYSIA:
COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM OR
AUTHORITARIAN DEMOCRACY?

Nurhani binti Abd Muis

ID: 2991 17 2024

1
 Malaysia: Competitive Authoritarianism or Authoritarian Democracy?
Nurhani Abd Muis | 2991 17 2024

An authoritarian form of government is one where the population are not able to select
their own leader and have little to no participation in the decision making of the government.
Authoritarianism is also generally aligned with centralized authority and a lack of political
freedoms. Contrary to authoritarian, democracy is a system of government where the people are
able to choose their leaders and the selection is performed virtually through elections.

Authoritarian democracy, as the name suggests, is a hybrid regime of authoritarian form of

government and democracy. Authoritarian democracy can also be called as semi-democracy,
virtual democracy, electoral democracy, pseudo-democracy, illiberal democracy, semi-
authoritarianism, soft authoritarianism, electoral authoritarianism, and Freedom House’s Partly
Free (William Case, 1996). Despite that, much of these works suffers from a significant weakness.
Many studies are conducted based on a bias in democracy and most analysts of this hybrid regime
frequently treat it as partial or reduced forms of democracy, or as an excessively lengthy phase of
shifting towards democracy (David Collier and Steven Levitsky, 1997). This imply that the hybrid
regime will soon turn into a democracy while the authoritarianism will soon diminish. Yet Jeffrey
Herbst has recently disputed, this is often not the case. Although some mixed regimes such as
Mexico, and Taiwan underwent transitions toward democracy in the 1990s, others like Azerbaijan,
and Belarus transitioned into authoritarianism. Still many others either remained completely stable
or moved in more than one direction such as Russia, Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Malaysia (Juan J.
Linz, 2000).

Without a doubt, Malaysia is not a democracy. Democracy is a system in which parties

lose elections, yet, the governing coalition led by the United Malays National Organization
(UMNO) has been securely in power since Malaysia’s independence in 1957. Moreover, until
2008 the government commanded on average 80% of parliamentary seats which allowed it to
change the constitution at its whims (Jiří Holík, 2011). Although one may assume that the
percentage result of the support for UMNO (or its successor Barisan Nasional) is an example of
extraordinary national cohesiveness, there are a number of reasons which suggest otherwise. Thus,
we can safely assume that Malaysian government practices authoritarian democracy. But instead
of authoritarian democracy, I will use the term competitive authoritarianism for the Malaysian
political system because Malaysia is not transitioning into democracy in the near future.

2
 Malaysia: Competitive Authoritarianism or Authoritarian Democracy?
Nurhani Abd Muis | 2991 17 2024

Although some scholars are of the opinion that the state and civil society are in transition
towards democracy (Verma, 2002), a solid democratic system may not be one of the results. The
Malaysian regime has also shown great resilience in crisis situations, and the political elites have
remained unified. According to Weiss and Saliha (2003):

Civil society in Malaysia does not fit the theoretical ideal of democratic, grassroots-
oriented, politically transformative organizations for building social capital and keeping
the government in line. Too few of them are truly independent, self-financing, and racially
and linguistically inclusive (Weiss and Saliha, 2003).

What are some of the proof that competitive authoritarianism in Malaysia is not a part of
democracy? One of the requirements of modern democracy is a fair play between the parties.
However, competitive authoritarian regimes allows for an uneven playing field between
government and opposition. Despite the frequent elections and the general elections being held
once every 5 years, officials and politicians regularly exploit the resources of the state, harass and
being hostile to their opposition candidates and their supporters, and even manipulate electoral
results.

An example of exploitation made by the politician is the 1Malaysia Development Berhad

(1MDB) scandal. It is the biggest political corruption scandal the country has ever seen. The
Malaysian government-owned strategic development company was involved in corrupt payments
estimated at RM 2.6 billion (roughly USD 681 million) into the personal bank account of the
current Prime Minister Abdul Najib Razak. It was initially claimed by the government as
“donations from a prince of Saudi Arabia” (Andrew Aeria and Tan Seng Keat, 2015). Despite the
claim, the government is not able to fully explain and resolve this scandal, which only confirmed
that the credibility of Barisan Nasional is deteriorating.

Not only that, newspapers critical of the government like The Edge Daily and the Edge
Weekly, Malaysiakini, and The Malaysian Insider had their printing licenses revoked
predominantly for reporting on the huge 1MDB scandal (Malaysiakini, 2015).

Besides exploitation, opposition politicians and other government critics may be

threatened, harassed, or detained. Members of the opposition party can even be jailed, exiled or
murdered – which is uncommon but has happened in the past. The most prominent case of the

3
 Malaysia: Competitive Authoritarianism or Authoritarian Democracy?
Nurhani Abd Muis | 2991 17 2024

opposition being treated unjustly was the treatment of the notable opposition leader, Anwar
Ibrahim, who was the leader of the opposition coalition named Pakatan Rakyat (PR). Pakatan
Rakyat is a coalition of three political parties, namely Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), Parti
Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Democratic Action Party (DAP). It has managed not only to deny
Barisan Nasional its 2/3 majority in Parliament but also to take control of the strategic states of
Selangor and Penang. It is also in control of Kedah and Kelantan (Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk,
2011). In one case, the PR coalition filed three legal charges of election irregularities and electoral
overspending by the Barisan Nasional (BN). However, BN retaliated by persecuting the PR leader.
He was jailed soon after in February 2015 for five years on the charges of “sodomy” (Andrew
Aeria and Tan Seng Keat, 2015), which many believe to be false charges.

Regimes characterized by such corruptions and abuses cannot be called democratic because
the right of freedom is not protected– whether it is freedom of the press, freedom of association,
and freedom to criticize the government without reprisal (Levitsky, S., Way, L., A., 2002).

To conclude, the political system in Malaysia is far off from being democratic and further
heading towards authoritarianism. Although elections are being held, the government party has
always reigned ever since the independence of Malaysia in 1957. There are no freedom to criticize
the government without reprisal and the opposing politicians are always being harassed for
criticizing the government. Besides, in the face of 1MDB tragic scandal, there are no
accountabilities and the institutions of the state only adhere to the orders of the Malaysian corrupt
politicians and do not observe the law. The civil society and the local media are powerless in
exposing the political wrongdoings, which further fuel the pessimism, disappointment and
cynicism. Thus, for a healthy democracy and good governance to take root in Malaysia, the civil
society should be more active and the law should protect those who make an effort to correct the
government.

4
 Malaysia: Competitive Authoritarianism or Authoritarian Democracy?
Nurhani Abd Muis | 2991 17 2024

REFERENCE

Andrew Aeria and Tan Seng Keat (2015) Malaysia Country Report 2015, Deepening
Authoritarian Governance in Malaysia: The 2015 Asian Democracy Index; pp 49-50

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk (2011) Kajian Malaysia, the Limits of Civil Society in
Democratizing the State: the Malaysian Case; 29: 91–109

David Collier and Steven Levitsky (1997) “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual
Innovation in Comparative Research,” World Politics 49: 430–51

Jeffrey Herbst (2001) “Political Liberalization in Africa after Ten Years,” Comparative
Politics 33: 357–75

Juan J. Linz (2000) Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne

Rienner), 34

Levitsky, S., Way, L., A. (2002). Journal of Democracy, The Rise of Competitive
Authoritarianism; 13: 51-65.

Malaysiakini (2015) “Home Ministry Gives Three Reasons for The Edge Ban.” Retrieved
from: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/306109. Date accessed: 1st January 2018

Weiss, M. and Saliha Hassan, eds. (2003). Social movement in Malaysia: From moral
communities to NGOs. London: Routledge.

William Case (1996) “Can the ‘Halfway House’ Stand? Semidemocracy and Elite Theory
in Three Southeast Asian Countries,” Comparative Politics 28: 437–64