YOU might have thought that if, after a general election to a national legislature, candidates representing Party A secured 318 out of the available 650 seats, while Party B’s candidates won 262 seats, the former would be the winner, and the latter the loser.
But few are viewing the results of the recent UK General Election in that way. The simple reason is that these were not the expected results: at least, not when Prime Minister Theresa May announced a surprise election, seeking to increase the Conservative parliamentary majority of 12 seats, which was acquired at the 2015 election when David Cameron was still the party leader.
Since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, calling an early election has become a bigger deal than it was before. Previously, the prime minister could ask the monarch to dissolve parliament at any time. But the aim of the 2011 Act was to reduce the likelihood of early elections by requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the House of Commons.
Theresa May obtained this parliamentary approval at a time when the Conservatives were way up in the polls – some saying by 20 percentage points. Back in April, friends were making predictions that the Tories would increase their majority to 100 seats. And the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was a deeply divisive figure: many Labour MPs had openly rebelled against him and were distancing themselves from him in their campaign literature.
All that shifted dramatically in a few weeks for a variety of reasons. One was that the Conservative manifesto was badly received by key constituencies (there was an explicit U-turn on social care costs), while Theresa May’s style of campaigning was seen as arrogant (with very tight control of media) and far too presidential in a country where politics is supposed to be more collegiate; yet, she didn’t deign to participate in a televised debate with the other party leaders (earning a Twitter rebuke from the House of Cards account). At the same time, Labour enjoyed a surge of young voters, and now even those previously critical MPs are lauding Jeremy Corbyn for getting a better than expected result.
Clearly, Theresa May’s decision to call an early general election has backfired on her spectacularly, and many speculate that she won’t last as party leader (and thus Prime Minister) for long.
What is taken for granted by the majority of Brits, however, is that all of the main political parties, and indeed the vast majority of the electorate, have accepted the legitimacy of the result. There are no widespread concerns of vote-rigging: just a few isolated complaints of postal vote irregularities. The Electoral Commission enjoys public confidence, and the police and courts are mostly seen to be upholding the law where their roles intersect with electoral matters. Though certain media outlets are known or alleged to be biased towards certain political parties, there is competition between them, while the publicly-funded broadcaster grants space to parties who enjoy a significant share of the vote.
(There are rumblings about the electoral system; chiefly that First Past the Post is inherently unfair, and that a proportional method would be more reflective of the electorate’s wishes – but one assumes that even if the system was changed, the Election Commission, police, courts and media would still play their roles independently.)
As the latest date for the next general election in Malaysia looms inexorably, politicians should ask whether it is better for their long-term legacies, and more importantly for the nation, if our Election Commission, police, courts and media were able to play their roles independently of influence from political party interests. In theory, of course, that is already the case, with our laws making their roles explicit in many areas.
But when rules regarding delineation (“delimitation” in the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution) seem to be side-lined, or when the practice of sharing of drafts of supplementary electoral rolls with key stakeholders is inexplicably stopped, public confidence in the Election Commission is surely to be damaged. Similarly, when certain legal challenges against the Election Commission are prioritised over others, that may call into question the independence of the judiciary.
It is easy to understand why someone coveting power would want to subvert the process to ensure their attainment and retention of it. But that might backfire on their legacy: for how many such historical figures of that ilk are respected, admired and upheld as role models today?
If politicians really cared about their long-term legacies, they should seek a free and fair electoral system featuring independent institutions. That would ensure victories that are triumphantly sweeter and legacies that are democratically and morally superior.
Tunku Zain Al-Abidin is founding president of Ideas.