Lawfare between PAS, Bersatu and Wawasan: The hidden danger to Malaysia’s first-past-the-post democracy — Phar Kim Beng

The increasing tensions between PAS, Bersatu, and Wawasan cannot be viewed as merely another instance of coalition disagreement. These disputes expose a deeper weakness in Malaysia's First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) democracy: the potential for political competition to be replaced by legal battles. While parties have the right to seek judicial remedies when laws or constitutions are allegedly violated, there is a danger when legal action becomes an extension of political competition.

This is exemplified by the complex relationship between Hadi-led PAS, Bersatu, and Wawasan. The immediate challenge is structural, as Perikatan Nasional (PN) was formed as a coalition, not exclusively for any single component party. Debates over Bersatu's status, leadership authority, coalition membership, and electoral negotiations illustrate how swiftly political disagreements can transform into disputes over rules, constitutions, and legal standing.

For Bersatu, this poses an existential threat as it must decide whether to accept PAS's interpretation of political rules or challenge it through coalition mechanisms or courts. PAS faces a similar dilemma; it cannot assume that every interpretation of coalition rules advanced by its leadership will be accepted by its partners. Meanwhile, Wawasan, as an intermediary, risks becoming entangled in the competing interpretations of authority among PAS, Bersatu, and Barisan Nasional (BN).

This is particularly problematic as Malaysia operates under an FPTP system, where alliances are crucial. A disagreement over electoral constituencies could lead to the loss of victory. Therefore, disputes over coalition membership are not merely administrative issues, but central to political survival. When PAS claims the right to negotiate specific seats while Bersatu argues this violates PN's constitution, several questions arise: who represents PN, who can allocate seats, who can negotiate with outside parties, and whether decisions made without one component party are legally valid.

This can escalate into legal disputes. This situation could lead to the judicialization of coalition politics, which is particularly serious in an FPTP system. Parties must know which candidates are standing, under whose symbols, with whom, and according to what electoral understanding. Ambiguity is costly politically, and litigation is even more so.

Malaysia must avoid this judicialization of coalition politics, as it would go beyond coalition instability to become judicial interference in political affairs.