Empat kongres berlalu, politik Malaysia masih cari arah

Four major political parties in Malaysia—DAP, PKR, PAS, and Umno—have concluded their respective campaigns. In a short span, the public will learn how these four parties perceive themselves, evaluate their opponents, maintain achievements, and outline steps towards the 2016 general election (PRU16). Each party confidently convinces the public that they are the strongest, most relevant, and most trustworthy.

However, after these four key points, two issues remain unresolved. First, who exactly do they want to lead after this. And second, and more importantly, what shared ideas do they wish to offer to guide Malaysia forward. None dare to firmly lock their choice of alliance. Each party guards its options, reads possibilities, and avoids closing doors prematurely.

This phenomenon, known as "office-seeking" politics, involves parties positioning themselves for a winning coalition, not for the underlying principles to be followed. This is not a new occurrence as each party strives to position itself best for power. However, when the choice of coalition remains open, the nation continues to struggle—trying to determine who can be allied with whom, who is becoming stronger, and which coalition is most likely to rule Putrajaya.

The conversation quickly returns to the question of who, while the bigger question—what they wish to build—continues to fade. Four parties face questions on how to maintain their positions in a united government without losing identity and supporter trust. The decision to stay until the PRU16 ends answers their current stance, but fails to answer the form of cooperation they intend to offer after the election.

PKR finds itself in a different position. Born from a reform movement, it is now the backbone of the government. When out of power, reform is a demand; once in power, reform must translate into achievements. PKR must also consider the form of coalition that can sustain its position after this. PAS is increasingly clear in its desire to strengthen itself as the Malay-Islamic bloc.

The question is whether this strength will translate through Perikatan Nasional (PN) like now, broader cooperation, or a new configuration after the election. Umno, likely the most interesting among them, speaks more confidently about its own strength and future, including the Blue Malaysia Agenda and the possibility of broader cooperation.

At the same time, it stresses commitment to a united government until the end of the term. The party's stance on the political stage may seem contradictory to its stance in the government, but there lies an important truth about coalition politics: party members in government are not necessarily out of competition in politics. It is not a sign of instability, but rather a basic feature of shared power democracy.

Law opponent, ally, competitor, and a lesson Since 2018, almost all major parties have tasted power and opposition. Moreover, parties that were once fiercely opposed have also worked together. Umno and PAS once marched together in the National Accord. Unity and PAS together in the PN. Opposing parties now sit side by side in a united government.

In politics, it is often said that there are no friends or enemies forever, only interests forever. However, after nearly eight years of dynamic politics, Malaysia should be mature enough to determine what interests should be consistently maintained between party interests and national interests? Every party certainly answers: national interests.

However, too often, this answer remains only on the lips and stage of congress, while in practice, the opposite usually occurs. Competing without losing government However, nearly eight years of the same dynamic politics should also prepare us to understand coalition politics. Coalition politics is not politics without competition, but the ability to manage competition without losing government.

Parties within the same government do not need to lose their identity or stop competing for support. Here are two worthy models. Germany shows a coalition guided by principles: before forming the government, parties discuss and publish a coalition contract— a basic program agreed upon and capable of being judged by the public. Indonesia, on the other hand, illustrates a more fluid coalition, allowing former opponents to gather in a single government, but usually with more power than ideas.

Two models, two ends. So, which direction should Malaysia lean? The public now has a record to compare, not just since 2018, but since the beginning of the country's political history. The public has learned something priceless—the record to compare. Almost all major players can now be evaluated, where the public has seen them as both government and opposition, heard what they promised outside of power and what they did after coming to power.

Thus, as we approach PRU16, the public's assessment should move beyond mere identity politics. The question is no longer just which party is closest to our community, religion, or sentiment, but which coalition has the ability, manpower, stability, and most convincing ideas to govern Malaysia. Identity politics and achievement politics now need to be accompanied by evaluative politics, where the public can judge based on records, not just sentiment.

However, for the public to evaluate correctly, parties must offer clearer choices. Government formation or nation-building? The biggest question left by these four congresses has been answered. Each party clearly tells who they are and why they are worthy of support. What remains unclear is with whom they want to lead after the PRU16, and more importantly, for what.

Is the coalition to be determined only after the election, based on the mathematics of vacant seats? Or will the public be given a clearer picture earlier?