While the recent Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) defeat in the lower house elections in Japan was indeed historic, this was not the first time post-World War Two (WWII) in which a government without the LDP had been formed.

It was 16 years ago, after the 1993 elections, that a government comprising a coalition of seven opposition parties was formed after the LDP failed to a obtain a majority of seats. However, this anti-LDP coalition government would collapse after only nine months in power.

The manner in which this opposition coalition was formed and later collapsed and the subsequent consolidation of anti-LDP forces under the ‘new’ Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) present interesting comparisons and lessons for the opposition parties in Malaysia in today’s context.

The inability of the LDP to maintain its post-WWII record of winning a majority of seats in the more important lower house, or House of Representatives, was partly due to three breakaway parties that were formed by influential LDP factions leaders, most notable of whom was Ichiro Ozawa.

The presence of factions within the LDP was nothing new given the rather unique electoral system used in Japan before 1994. Voters were given only one vote to cast for one candidate in multi-member districts that would elect between three to five candidates.

This electoral system, called the single non-transferable vote (SNTV), which was also used in Taiwan and Korea, would not only encourage inter-party competition but also intra-party competition as well.

However, up to 1993, the LDP had been very successful in preventing factional leaders from leaving its fold to form their own parties. These factional leaders took the decision to leave the LDP in the early 1990s because of intense disagreement with the existing party leadership over the contentious issue of electoral and campaign finance reform.

It was partly over this issue that Ichiro Ozawa, the leader of one of the LDP breakaway factions, used to unite the different anti-LDP opposition parties after the 1993 election.

This anti-opposition coalition would comprise parties of different ideological stripes including the Japanese Socialist Party (JSP), a pro-pacifist party, the Clean Government Party (CGP), supported by the Buddhist sect, Soka Gakkkai, the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP), which had broken away from the Japanese Socialist Party (JSP), as well as the three LDP breakaway parties.

However, this coalition government, led by Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa, a former LDP leader, would collapse a mere nine months after it was formed. Legislation to reform the electoral system and campaign financing had been passed and Ozawa was seen as trying to rebuild an anti-LDP coalition that would co-opt more LDP defectors but would exclude the socialist JSP.

Without a common binding force, the fragmented nature of the different opposition parties and Ozawa’s behind the scenes machinations, it was not surprising that the LDP would be successful without co-opting the JSP and one of the LDP breakaway parties to switch over to its side after Hosokawa tendered his resignation over a minor financial scandal.

For the JSP, the LDP offer to nominate its leader, Tomiichi Murayama, as the new prime minister was too tempting to resist.

Unfortunately for the socialists, Murayama’s position as prime minister was not sustainable and when his party experienced defections and a significant electoral setback in the 1996 election, partly caused by it entering into a coalition government with the LDP, he was forced to resign and the LDP would once again regain control of the prime minister’s position.

The period of time from 1993 to 2003 saw a number of new parties forming as well as old parties disbanding with the LDP ever ready to ‘recruit’ independent candidates, to open its arms to defectors and to ‘pick off’ opposition parties that were willing to lend it legislative as well as electoral support in exchange for positions in the government.

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which won the recent elections, was the result of an amalgamation of different parties, factions and defectors that finally coalesced into a credible alternative to the LDP.

BN’s ‘divide and conquer’ strategy

What lessons can the opposition parties in Malaysia glean from the experience of their counterparts in Japan?

Firstly, a divided opposition always presents itself as an easy target for a dominant incumbent regime to use the classic ‘divide and conquer’ strategy.
The ongoing rumours that the BN is still seeking for defections to take over the state governments in Selangor and Kedah as well as the attempts to create divisions between PAS on the one hand and DAP and PKR on the other is testament of this strategy.

This is not the first nor will it be the last time such a tactic has been and will be used. The precursor to the BN, the Alliance, took advantage of the regionalised strength of the PPP (Perak), Gerakan (Penang) and SUPP (Sarawak) to entice these then opposition parties to join a reconstituted governing coalition after the 1969 general election.

The division of the Iban and Kadazan vote behind different parties in Sarawak and Sabah no doubt helps the PBB and Umno respectively maintain their control over both these states.

Hence, it is imperative that Pakatan introduce structures and mechanisms which ensure that its candidates who run for office are men and women of integrity who are not likely to switch their allegiance because of certain ‘inducements’. Pakatan also needs to institutionalize procedures to strengthen inter-party bonds and to formalize mechanisms to resolve inter-party disagreements including possibly setting up an inter-party disciplinary mechanism.

Secondly, the temptation for short-term gain for positions can and will usually result in a long-term decline in the electoral fortunes of an opposition party that decides to throw it its lot with the ruling incumbent. There was no way that the LDP would continue to allow a leader from the JSP to remain prime minister beyond the short term. The JSP would suffer the electoral consequences as a result of its ‘dalliance’ with the LDP.

Similarly, any tempting offers by the BN to anoint an opposition leader as the chief minister or menteri besar of one of the opposition-controlled states would probably end in tears for that nominee and his party. If PAS has thrown in its lot with the BN in Selangor so that one of its state leaders could be nominated as MB after the 2008 general election, I have no doubts that his tenure would have been a short one and that PAS, nationally, would suffer a backlash in future elections.

Indeed, such a fate did befall PAS after its three year ‘dalliance’ with the BN from 1974 to 1977. It lost control of the state of Kelantan in 1978 and would not recover this state until the 1990 elections, with the help of Tengku Razaleigh’s Semangat 46 (S46).

Thirdly, the process of building a credible opposition coalition or party to defeat the dominant incumbent party is often a painful one that takes place over many years rather than over a short period of time. During this time, there are often many periods of uncertainty as leaders of different parties and factions negotiate and renegotiate their respective policy positions.

One could say that Pakatan is the culmination of a process that began with S46 forming the APU and Gagasan Rakyat in the 1990 general election. S46 rejoining Umno, the formation of Keadilan and later the Barisan Alternatif in the 1999 general election, the departure of DAP from this coalition in 2001 and the formation of Pakatan after the 2008 general election is all part and parcel of that difficult process.

This task is far from complete. Pakatan in Peninsular Malaysia still has many internal problems to iron out and the process of building a united opposition coalition in East Malaysia is still very much in flux.

Fourthly, winning power is but the first step for any opposition coalition seeking to replace a dominant incumbent regime. The DPJ has to show that it is capable of governing with a coherent set of policies despite the differing interests of the diverse factions which is represented under its umbrella.

Similarly, Pakatan has to make use of the opportunity to govern the states currently under its control to give a sense of how it will govern as a coalition, should it ever replace the BN at the federal level. Thus far, the record of the different Pakatan state governments has been mixed at best but their efforts to govern the respective states have been hampered by a relatively uncooperative federal government.

The DPJ’s recent overwhelming victory in Japan shows that dominant regimes can be defeated at the polls replicating the defeat of the PRI in Mexico, the defeat of the KMT in Taiwan and the defeat of the Socialist Party in Senegal, all in 2000 and more recently, the defeat of the Colorado Party in Paraguay in 2008.

But such outcomes are far from guaranteed as dominant regimes are still very much in power in countries such as Botswana and Singapore. Whether Pakatan can replicate the opposition’s performance in Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Senegal and Taiwan remains to be seen.

ONG KIAN MING is a PhD candidate in political science at Duke University. He can be reached at im.ok.man@gmail.com.

Related Post :

None Found