The most effective way to exercise power is to rule by legitimacy. Hanging on to power by creating ethnic strife, taking advantage of ethnic prejudices, or drawing upon the primordial loyalties is a spent strategy. To cling to power by force is seldom successful. In the long run, without legitimacy, one cannot rule effectively.
Even a military and economic super-power like the US cannot hold on to Iraq because its decision to invade lacks legitimacy. The US is now running out of resources. Without legitimacy, the US has lost a lot of goodwill from the international community and its influence in global politics is much diminished because of its short-sighted adventurism.
Similarly, the BN’s wrangle in Perak has created a government that suffers from a lack of legitimacy. The way civil servants and the police are aiding BN to maintain its fragile grip may be a demonstration of power but it is quickly losing the coalition nationwide respect.
There may be more than one menteri besar in Perak but there is little doubt that there is only one speaker. Under the Perak state constitution, the speaker has wide powers and the state assembly secretary is a servant of the speaker.
Does the speaker need the sultan's consent to convene a state assembly? Yes, if it is a new sitting but no if the previous sitting was merely adjourned. Thus, whilst the courts are deliberating the legitimacy of the BN Perak state government, BN is fast losing in the court of public opinion. This is one reason why the BN will fight tooth and nail to avoid state elections.
In this situation, there are several ways to maintain power. If history is anything to go by, a state of emergency will be declared whereby the federal government takes over the effective administration of the state. In such a situation, the question of legitimacy is thrown out of the window.
The problem with this strategy is that it has been used once too often. Ultimately, the BN has to win over the hearts and minds of not only the people of Perak but all Malaysians. In this matter, state assembly persons were voted into office by the people and if they are set aside, the repercussions will felt nationwide.
Another strategy might be to arrest selected opposition leaders under the ISA. This will immediately earn the BN opprobrium but may buy time to change the minds of Malaysians.
This might work in 1988 or even 1999 but today for every one opposition leader thrown in jail, 500 take their place. Hindraf is a case in point and there is nothing holding back the masses from rising up against an ‘illegitimate’ government.
A third scenario may be the idea of a nationwide suspension of parliamentary democracy. Wipe the slate clean and re-introduce programmes that will convince Malaysians to see BN-style reason.
The problem with that strategy is that, unlike 1969, the nation today is very different. It is much more educated and more connected. As the 18 th largest trading nation in the world, Malaysia is too integrated to risk a pariah status.
Moreover, once the military and security forces have had a taste of power, they will not be too bothered with civilian leaders, Umno included.
At the end of the day, the problem with the exercise of power without legitimacy is that it creates resistance, often very strong resistance made up of committed individuals.
Like it or not, Umno, which controls BN, has to win the hearts and minds of Malaysians by abandoning its radical fringe. It must demonstrate a willingness to trust the people and empower local communities.
It must make the ultimate sacrifice by setting aside ethnicity and embrace a hybrid Malaysian nationalism. If not, chances are that it will lose more than just Perak.
