ONE of the things that has always troubled me about politics is how easily people change their principles depending on who is in power. Conduct that was loudly condemned when committed by a previous government suddenly becomes defensible when the same people find themselves supporting the government of the day. Even more disturbing is how readily intelligent and otherwise decent people participate in this political hypocrisy.
What exactly constitutes abuse of power? Broadly speaking, it occurs when a person entrusted with authority exercises that authority improperly, arbitrarily or for purposes inconsistent with those for which it was conferred. It is not confined to corruption or financial misconduct. It may include protecting political allies, punishing opponents, interfering with independent institutions, manipulating administrative processes or exercising otherwise lawful powers for improper purposes.
The important point is that possessing legal authority does not automatically make every exercise of that authority legitimate. A power conferred for a particular public purpose cannot properly be used to advance personal or political interests. This distinction is central to the rule of law, which is frequently invoked by politicians but not always understood or respected in practice.
The rule of law does not simply mean that a country has laws. Even authoritarian regimes have laws, sometimes very elaborate ones. Its essential principle is that everyone, including those exercising governmental authority, is subject to the law.
In Malaysia, Article 4 of the Federal Constitution establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. Those entrusted with public power must therefore exercise it within constitutional and legal limits, rather than treating government institutions as instruments of political convenience.
Why should ordinary Malaysians be concerned about this? Because abuse of power is not merely a dispute among politicians or a matter of political morality. Its consequences eventually reach the ordinary citizen.
When laws appear to be enforced selectively, confidence in the justice system suffers. When political loyalty becomes more important than competence, the quality of public administration deteriorates. When favouritism influences governmental decisions, economic opportunities may increasingly depend on connections rather than merit. Over time, public institutions risk losing the independence and credibility necessary to perform their functions effectively.
Perhaps the most damaging consequence, however, is the gradual normalisation of abuse. When questionable conduct is repeatedly defended on grounds of political necessity, society begins to lower its expectations of those in power. What was previously regarded as unacceptable becomes tolerable, and what becomes tolerable eventually risks becoming part of our political culture.
This brings me to a particularly troubling question concerning coalition governments. What happens when the political parties that collectively sustain a government become comfortable with abuse of power, or are unwilling to challenge it because doing so might threaten their positions in government?
Coalition governments are not inherently problematic. Indeed, the participation of different political parties can provide opportunities for scrutiny, negotiation and restraint. However, these advantages disappear when the overriding concern of coalition partners becomes political survival rather than the principles they profess to uphold.
A political party may recognise that a particular exercise of power is questionable, yet decide that speaking out would jeopardise its position in government. Another may rationalise its silence on the ground that maintaining political stability is more important. Before long, collective political convenience can become more important than accountability.
This is especially worrying because abuse of power does not require the enthusiastic support of everyone in government. It can continue simply because those with the political influence to challenge it choose not to do so.
Fortunately, Malaysia remains a democracy. We have constitutional institutions, parliamentary processes, judicial oversight, public debate and elections through which the rakyat can hold governments accountable. These safeguards are important because no political leader or coalition should be regarded as indispensable to the country.
However, democracy cannot be sustained by elections alone. It also requires citizens who are prepared to think independently rather than surrender their judgment to political personalities or party loyalties. I have never understood why some people are so willing to excuse conduct by their preferred politicians that they would readily condemn in others.
The long-term danger is that democratic institutions may gradually lose their effectiveness even while retaining their formal existence. Parliament may continue sitting, elections may continue being held and government agencies may continue functioning, but the quality of accountability can deteriorate if political interference and selective standards become normalised.
Malaysia has already demonstrated that governments can be changed through democratic means. That is something we should value and protect. But changing governments is not enough if the political culture remains unchanged and the same questionable practices
continue under different political leadership.
Ultimately, my concern is not merely about individual politicians abusing power. It is about the possibility of developing a political culture in which those entrusted with preventing abuse become its defenders, while citizens become increasingly willing to rationalise wrongdoing in the name of political loyalty.
If we allow that to happen, the greatest loss will not be suffered by any particular political party. It will be suffered by Malaysia and future generations who may inherit a democracy whose institutions remain standing but whose integrity has been seriously weakened.
Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Dr Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is the founder and chairman of Yayasan Rapera, an NGO that promotes community-based learning activities and compassionate thinking among Malaysians. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
