DECEMBER 10 — “I really support your party in elections, but I am not a party member. I don’t want to be.”

I hear that a lot, especially during elections. Usually in the form of a grinning man on the street with a cherubic face picking up a campaign flyer, before turning to face and assure me that the candidate and the party have his vote. However, if I urge him to join the party he’d be quick to dismiss the idea. No he says, with an emphatic shake of the head to reject the absurd proposition.

He and the thousands others who decline with dissimilar shrugs. Parties, especially those in opposition, should pay attention to that sentiment. 

They are the lost opportunities for political parties especially in view of how they show their supremacy over other parties — by parading their total number of members. 

All local parties — in government and out — always historically claim large membership bases, however none can claim substantial participation from these members.

How can a country have such dissonance after half a century of political organisation? Is the core problem with the parties, their members or the larger informed population who disassociate?

I lay the blame mostly on political parties, or specifically their leaders.

It’s not that Malaysians are disinterested in committing to organisations. Football fan clubs have substantially more interacting and involvement from their members even when they do not own the football clubs.  

These parties also are in a broad consensus that finances determine their performance. While money is crucial, the reliance on it grows unhealthier when parties cannot lean on their members to fill the dollar gap with participation zeal.

In the present two developments prevail, firstly, most people with noteworthy political interest are not party members, and secondly, even those in those parties, by large are not involved enough, not in the way to shape or drive the party forward.

Nothing underscores membership ambivalence more than the fact major parties in Malaysia do not rely on membership fees to manage themselves. The one ringgit per member per year is common, and even that nominal fee is rarely paid by the member. Politicians who need their support purportedly pay the token annual fees.

The whole process is stripped down to zombie-like rituals.

Members are expected to attend events and ensure a quorum at the branch’s annual general meeting (AGM).

Leaders attend those events, get voted in at those AGMS, do charity for members, buy them coffee and roti canai, decide policies, discuss why members are not attending events enough, argue over internal power-plays and then attend more events.

Members appear only to be pawns in a superior game exclusive to leaders. This detachment leads to criticism that the leaders’ hypocrisy is self-evident in how they treat their own members.

It is harsh, but ignoring the grain of truth in the observation is foolhardy.

I used to believe that parties out of government were weak due to the lack of money. I still am convinced money is a major concern, one which determines a lot of things, but the real weakness in these parties is their inability to mount real support from those they claim as their own, their party members.

There are quick, clear ways to resolve this. So like credit card salesmen, the party can answer to prospective members the real question to application, what can they get?

Collect fees

It solves the lack of money conundrum, and it also weeds out those who just want to appear in a lengthy Excel sheet, generously referred to as the membership roll.

Traditionally parties in Malaysia are divided into headquarters, state, division and branch.

Usually, branches struggle to meet the minimum numbers required to continue as a branch. The instant noodle solution is to get as many friends, families and acquaintances to sign up without paying. The view expressed here is to sign people up and ask them to pay. They can be friends or complete strangers, they only need to agree to the general objective of the party, support that view and pay their dues.

Secondly I advocate, which is equally important, to raise the membership fee. Nominal fees are impractical and must be replaced by rates which reflect that actual management of the party, at branch, division, state and national levels.

When people pay, and secondly pay a substantial fee, say RM50 a year they will either choose to leave or stay. Those who stay form expectations of accountability, information and involvement, because finally they are the owners of the party, its electoral ambitions, political campaigns and passion.

Let them have their candidates

It can be quite a buzz, personal buzz, when the many crawl up to your office to seek your graces. While it may not be as visceral in reality, the idea that an elite choose election candidates who then grovel on and on — my personal favourite, trying to fit into all photo-ops with the current boss — reduces political evolution.   

This charade of outwardly and continuously seeking the blessings of the powerful in order to become parliamentary or state assembly candidates is a stain on political progress.

It also cements the notion through this circus that divisions and branches owe the central body rather than the other way around.

What point is there to be a Sepang or Kuantan division with the corollary branches, if it does not determine ultimately the candidate for its seat? Is the Member of Parliament for Sepang or Kuantan representing the people of the constituency or are they merely extensions of the central leaders?

I am saying that central leaders cannot just hand candidates over to the division and tell them to suck it up and work for that candidate’s victory.

Around the world there are various methods of preselection, from strictly constituency selection review to a mix of local-central representatives in the committee. The successful ones all weigh heavily on the local divisions’ preference and even if central is adamant about the candidate they have to win over the division.

It can be tedious, but it is far better than infighting from the day of parliament dissolution to nomination day, and in several notable instances open revolt and sabotage from locals till an electoral defeat.

And this refers back to the many voters who feel strongly for a party but won’t join it. Why join the party when the only thing the party wants from me is my vote and refuses to engage me when I am in it? I might as well be out of it, no difference really.

This is scathing for opposition parties because their argument of an overly centralised Putrajaya limiting power to unelected technocrats sounds hollow when they too find Pudu, Tropicana and Raja Laut can determine unilaterally the fate of all seats across the country.

Pots and kettles come to mind.

Just getting started

There is a lengthier list, and it will grow once parties treat their members as the lifeblood of their movement, not just window dressing.

What is the upside for parties if they seek actively to engage their members? To begin with a more willing and focussed membership who’d look more akin to an army than a slobbering mob.

Second, by paying and having a say, results in them being invested in the party. Of course it means party operatives have to become more adapt at communicating and reacting to the needs of the members, which is fine since they will be reciprocated with a more discerning following.

A more rigorous party-member dynamic will be painful but necessary, and reduce the arbitrary and wing it culture prevalent in parties and subject themselves to ideological consistency and communication discipline.

Parties in Malaysia — or more precisely their leaders — feel encumbered often because members are a component they have to manage and avoid being tired of. That may exactly be their problem.

Perhaps time to think of members as large pillars they can lean on and rely for help even if the other guy has all the money in the world.

Members as the party’s army, not convenient stats on pieces of paper for display, now is that not an attractive proposition?

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.