JULY 27 — Politics is often described as the art of the possible. But there comes a point when political pragmatism risks becoming a political contradiction.
Pejuang’s latest decision to campaign alongside the Barisan Nasional (BN)-Perikatan Nasional (PN) understanding in the Negeri Sembilan state election raises precisely that question.
Here is a party that has just suffered one of its worst electoral setbacks, failing to convince enough voters in its own right, yet now seeks to become a decisive influence in determining who governs another state. That deserves careful scrutiny.
Pejuang’s electoral record in recent state elections has been sobering.
Having failed to secure meaningful public support, the party now appears to have concluded that the shortest route back to relevance is not through winning elections but through helping larger coalitions win them.
There is nothing unconstitutional about such a strategy. Politics allows alliances, compromises and tactical cooperation. Yet democracy also requires consistency.
Voters are entitled to ask why a party that could not persuade Malaysians to vote for it should suddenly expect Malaysians to embrace its political judgment on who deserves to govern.
The explanation offered by Pejuang’s leadership, especially Mukhriz Mahathir, is straightforward.
Defeating Pakatan Harapan (PH) has become the overriding objective.
Everything else, including previous reservations about cooperation between BN and PN, has become secondary.
That may be politically understandable.
It is not necessarily politically convincing.
Coalitions are strongest when they are built upon shared principles, common policy platforms and mutual confidence.
They become fragile when they are constructed primarily around defeating a common opponent.
Malaysia has already experienced what happens when governments are formed primarily through convenient electoral configuration rather than coherent governance.
The Sheraton Move in February 2020 remains one of the clearest reminders that parliamentary numbers alone cannot produce political stability.
Governments require trust, legitimacy and a shared governing philosophy.
The BN-PN understanding now emerging in Negeri Sembilan carries precisely this contradiction.
On one hand, leaders insist that cooperation is merely tactical.
On the other hand, every successful tactical cooperation gradually develops its own political momentum.
Today’s electoral accommodation can become tomorrow’s permanent coalition. Political history demonstrates that temporary arrangements often outlive their original purpose.
That is precisely why Negeri Sembilan matters.
The state is not merely choosing its next government.
It may also become a testing ground for a broader political architecture leading into the next general election.
Pejuang appears willing to play the role of facilitator in this experiment despite having received little electoral endorsement of its own.
This creates an unusual democratic paradox.
Normally, political influence follows electoral strength.
Here, electoral weakness is attempting to translate itself into coalition influence. There is another risk.
By aligning itself so closely with larger partners, Pejuang risks losing what remained of its distinct political identity. A political party cannot indefinitely define itself by whom it opposes.
Eventually, voters will ask what it stands for, what policies it champions and why it deserves representation independent of larger coalition partners.
Political relevance cannot permanently be borrowed. It must eventually be earned.
This is particularly true in Malaysia’s increasingly sophisticated political environment, where voters have shown themselves willing to punish parties they perceive as inconsistent or overly opportunistic.
For BN and PN, the calculation is equally delicate.
Every additional supporter may appear useful in the short term.
Yet every additional partner also introduces new expectations, competing priorities and potential disagreements after the election.
Malaysian politics has repeatedly demonstrated that winning together is often easier than governing together.
The Negeri Sembilan election therefore carries implications beyond its 36 state seats.
It represents a referendum on whether opposition politics in Malaysia should be driven primarily by coherent alternatives or by anti-incumbent configuration.
Neither approach guarantees success.
But only the first offers a durable foundation for governing.
Ultimately, the decision rests not with Pejuang, BN or PN.
It rests with the voters of Negeri Sembilan.
They must decide whether coalitions built upon shared conviction deserve greater confidence than coalitions assembled primarily to remove another government.
Political parties may negotiate among themselves.
Only the people can confer legitimacy.
And in any democracy, legitimacy remains the one electoral deposit that no political party can afford to lose.
* Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and a director at the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
