A GOVERNMENT gridlock is not a sign of crisis nor a cause for panic. If anything, it is a sign that the legislative branch is functioning well where it does not act as a rubber stamp for the executive.
From the United States Capitol in Washington to the Bundestag in Germany, an impasse is a mark of a functioning legislative assembly that highlights French philosopher, Montesquieu’s separation of powers.
Such is the case for Malaysia, where no absolute power rests with the executive, the legislature nor the judiciary. Parliament, which represents the legislative branch of our nation, is further divided into three main arms, i.e. Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Dewan Negara and the Dewan Rakyat.
The main purpose of dividing the legislative branch into three different sections is to control one’s power. Thanks to Montesquieu, the concentration of power within one singular entity, either the legislature or executive became anathema to modern democracies.
His ideas were echoed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the German philosopher who witnessed the ups and downs of the French Revolution. He later elaborated on Montesquieu’s idea of constitutional monarchy. Hegel went on to predict that one of the characteristics of a modern state is to have a constitutional sovereign that would depoliticise the final power of decision.
As such, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s action to summon individual members of parliament (and if he had convened the Conference of Rulers) recently is an example of a working, functioning Westminster system.
It might be extraordinary to us, but he is merely exercising his role as stipulated within the Constitution. To put it bluntly, we are witnessing a fail-safe mechanism as envisioned by Hegel in action when the legislature was hit by an impasse to form the executive branch.
Malaysia’s crisis is not unique. As recent as last year, King Felipe VI of Spain similarly had to call for the MPs to sit down together because of a government impasse. King Philippe of Belgium had to do the same in 2011 and 2018.
Diplomat and statesman Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord once argued that the excesses of demagoguery could be balanced by a constitutional monarch. He can’t be far from the truth. Not unlike their British counterparts, our civil service, too, answers to the Crown. That explains why our official documents come in envelopes marked “Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda”.
Because they are answerable to the Crown, the civil service will continue running, regardless of who is in power. This means that law and order would remain intact in the land.
As Chief Secretary to the Government Datuk Seri Mohd Zuki Ali demonstrated in his Facebook account — it is business as usual for the government machinery. Malaysians tend to use hyperbole in politics, where the words “state collapse”, “failed state” and “democracy is dead” are used often without understanding that they evoke chaos and anarchy to observers.
Sure, we have room for improvement but that does not mean democracy is dead nor that our state has failed.
A number of us might be fed up with politics and politicians, but one must not forget that it is democracy that gives us the room to replace these politicians we love to hate.
If anything, the impasse is a sign that our country is evolving into a mature democracy.
Perhaps, Churchill said it best: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
All things considered, Malaysia is on the right path.
The writer is a Foreign Service officer based in Paris who writes on international affairs with a particular emphasis on Europe. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Foreign Ministry
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times