SINCE Umno’s Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob has been appointed the nineth prime minister (PM) of Malaysia, it is expected that there will be less discussions on the subject of a national unity government.
The idea was imagined due to political uncertainty and the need for the government to move beyond partisan lines to address matters of health and the economy.
In fact, the proposal of a national unity government was seen as a solution to reduce politicking to focus on pressing matters.
In many ways, it was a technocratic solution to societal woes whereby experts will be appointed to steer the country.
This idea of a national unity government had cropped up now and then.
In the aftermath of the May 13, 1969, racial riots, the formation of national security council was an example of a non-partisan approach to administration.
In fact, the formation of BN with the incorporation of 14 political parties had elements of a national unity government, although it was certainly not non-partisan.
Last year with the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) Government and the resignation of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as PM, the idea of a national unity government came to the fore.
He had proposed that he would handpick members not necessarily from political parties to administer the country.
There were no takers to this proposal and it was seen as a devious ploy by Dr Mahathir to prolong his ‘stay’.
Had such a proposal been accepted, it would be a road to dictatorship.
The idea of a national unity government attracted the attention of a number of individuals, particularly those active in civil society organisations and others.
Being tired of the divisiveness of the nature of politics in the country they have suggested the idea and again, the idea was to free the administration of the country from the clutches of the politicians so that administration would be run on competent and efficient lines.
In fact, the raging COVID-19 pandemic and the attendant economic problems might have given urgency to the idea of a national unity government.
Very recently, given the few days impasse in the appointment of the prime minister, the idea of a national unity government was mooted as an interim measure to govern the country before the next general election.
However this fizzled out with the appointment of Ismail Sabri as the new PM.
The idea of a national unity government is a reminder that politicians in the ruling government have not done their job.
More than this, it was an attempt to reconstitute the administration by bringing in experts in their respective areas of their specialisation.
It is believed that once politics is removed from administration, things can be done professionally.
However, such an approach though attractive suffers from a number of problems.
Even if a national unity government is formed, there is no such thing as ‘completely bipartisan’.
It is impossible to prevent those in the administration from having their own ideas as to how things can be managed.
This is essentially politics.
In other words, it is naive to speak about a non-partisan approach as the real world does not function this way.
A national unity government might superficially suggest a perfect government, an administration free from corruption and scandals.
Is this possible?
The best form of checks and balances are not found in institutions and agencies set up to combat corruption, but in having a healthy and vibrant opposition.
But a national unity government without an opposition would be deprived of an effective and viable opposition.
There is no such thing as a national unity government is by definition incorruptible, just because of its non-partisan approach.
A non-partisan national unity government needs to have leader or a prime minister.
The person chosen might not be member of coalition that has most number of MPs.
If he or she is chosen, then there is going to be problems even before the administration could be put in effect.
A national unity government that purports to function of carefully selected individuals in various positions is a troublesome one to start off.
Since elected representatives might not be chosen to be part of a national unity government, how would they react to this non-inclusion?
Are they going to sit around doing nothing while the others, the non-elected ones, are called to perform their services to the nation?
A national unity government by definition is supposed to bring about unity in a very politically divisive environment.
But then, how do you foster unity when elected representatives are relegated to lesser roles and opposition ceases to exist?
Just imagine what would be the consequences if a national unity government was headed by a person known to have undemocratic traits.
It would be sure route to a dictatorship.
The very idea of a national university government might be attractive to some but there is no assurance that it would bring about the elusive unity.
On the contrary, by eschewing politics, it might give rise to system devoid of internal checks and balances.
It might be new politics of the worst kind unimaginable.
Unity government should not foster disunity. – Aug 22, 2021.
Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Photo credit: Malay Mail
