Political solutions designed to fight Covid-19

TODAY, we are awash with rumours of the possibility that Parliament may be dissolved.

An incumbent head of government has the right to request a dissolution of the legislative at any time from the monarch.

After the Perak constitutional crisis of 2009, our courts appear to have set precedent on a number of things. One of the most important precedents that is relevant today is when the courts upheld that the monarch has the right to refuse the request to dissolve the legislative.

(Another precedent set was that a sitting of the legislative was not necessary to prove that the head of government had lost his or her majority in the legislative)

In the event there is a request by the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament (on the basis of a lost majority) that is in fact refused by the monarch (due for instance, to entirely legitimate concerns surrounding Covid-19), then we enter into an expansive grey area.

Obviously, the conventional ideal is for another Member of Parliament to command a new majority and form a new government. This is the ‘smooth ideal’ envisioned by the Westminster system.

We may slowly be slipping into an era - not just in Malaysia but elsewhere - where such clear parliamentary majorities are starting to be an exception rather than the rule.

In Malaysia, this has certainly been the case since the Sheraton Move. Despite all the various permutations experimented with - some of them truly, unthinkably outlandish - we are in essence no clearer to a consensus on whether any one individual can command a majority in Parliament.

I posit two main options or categories regarding the way forward, should we in fact be faced with this scenario.

Option 1 is one in which we have a relatively recognisable government - a Prime Minister, a Cabinet, and so on.

Option 2 is where the primary ruling body of the nation does not look like your standard Cabinet, but perhaps one that more closely resembles the National Operations Council (Mageran) in 1969.

Option 1 is further divided into a number of subcategories.

Option 1A is what could be called the conventional solution. Perhaps in the days and weeks to come, one of the many names touted will finally emerge as the actual victor, and things will go on relatively "normally", constitutionally and politically speaking.

Option 1B is perhaps most commonly referred to as a "unity government", although it must be noted that this term may not necessarily mean all the things people assume it to mean.

The salient features of Option 1B are compromise, inclusivity, and perhaps most important: an outside-the-box candidate.

If any of the usual suspects finally emerge victorious, we will have Option 1A. What is more likely, I suspect, is that the 18 months of stalemate and deadlock show no sign of changing. If it were to have happened, it would have happened by now.

If we want a "normal" PM with a "normal" Cabinet then, we will most likely have to choose an "abnormal" candidate - ie, someone that hasn’t already been considered a million times over and over again.

Needless to say, such a "compromise" candidate cannot or should not be seen as to having long-term political goals, as political envy may inspire their colleagues to prevent them from rising further.

We can look at several concrete examples, from various sides of the aisle. The first does not belong to any side. Maszlee Malik is currently one of the only truly "independent" Members of Parliament - having been associated with a wide range of the political spectrum in the past.

One might consider Khairy Jamaluddin or Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, if only on the basis of their track record with Covid-19. Some may look to the likes of Nurul Izzah Anwar, or her mother Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, although I’m sure many may consider these to be too close to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said might be another candidate.

Going through all the potential candidates will take up too much time and space, but I’m sure out of the 220 Members of Parliament, one who might not usually get 111 votes in favour of, but who could perhaps at least not get 111 votes against either, can be found.

The idea here is to choose someone who is unlikely to be politically relevant after GE15, so as not to pose a threat to the current Members of Parliament.

This person’s one and only task, therefore, will be to guide Malaysia out of this Covid-19 hellhole that is costing tens of thousands of lives.

A Prime Minister with no political distractions and ambitions may finally be able to focus fully and unreservedly on the Covid-19 crisis, relying fully on the advice of actual public health and economic experts, instead of having to pander to political or monetary interests.

Such a Prime Minister would ideally have no qualms stepping aside once the pandemic is controlled, and GE15 rolls around.

In my mind, this is the best possible outcome under Option 1.

As an aside, any attempt by an incumbent PM who has lost the majority in the Dewan Rakyat to install himself as a ‘caretaker’ PM while Parliament remains hung or has been dissolved is very likely to meet with stern and sustained objection from the public.

Option 2 is legally and constitutionally much, much more complicated.

The legal and constitutional basis for forming something like Mageran is likely to require some gymnastics.

If it can be done however, this solution is even more direct.

It could potentially offer the best solution for Malaysia via the direct appointment of public health experts to a council which will be the final decision-making body of the Malaysian Government - again until such a time as the pandemic numbers are brought down to a predetermined level, and general elections can be held.

In my humble opinion, this offers an even better and more efficient solution to our crisis than any of the routes under Option 1, as the experts will then be the decision-makers, with no middlemen.

In October 2020, I wrote an article (https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/10/29/of-soter-fernandez-papal-conclaves-and-leadership) that touched on the way the Catholic Church chooses its pope. In it, I quoted this story from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave#Conclaves).

“To resolve prolonged deadlocks in papal elections in the earlier years, local authorities often resorted to the forced seclusion of the cardinal electors... In 1269, when the forced seclusion of the cardinals alone failed to produce a pope, the city of Viterbo refused to send in any materials except bread and water. When even this failed to produce a result, the townspeople removed the roof of the Palazzo dei Papi in their attempt to speed up the election.

In an attempt to avoid future lengthy elections, Gregory X introduced stringent rules with the 1274 promulgation of Ubi periculum. Cardinals were to be secluded in a closed area and not accorded individual rooms. No cardinal was allowed, unless ill, to be attended by more than two servants. Food was supplied through a window to avoid outside contact. After three days of the conclave, the cardinals were to receive only one dish a day; after another five days, they were to receive just bread and water. During the conclave, no cardinal was to receive any ecclesiastical revenue.”

It seems that even way back in the 13th century, people knew how to get their leaders to quickly resolve a political deadlock. Centuries later, our political deadlock is costing us thousands of Malaysian lives - it must be broken, no matter the cost.

> NATHANIEL TAN’s life was saved by his courageous hero, Gurpreet Singh (https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/586527). If you would like to save his, do email [e-mail]. #KuasaPuasa #BangsaMalaysia #BangkitBersama.