Reading Mazeni Alwi's MATAHATI column entitled 'A requiem for new politics', I could not help but agree with much of what he had to say. Regular readers of malaysiakini will know by now that the two of us have not always seen eye-to-eye with each other, and on some occasions our personal differences have come up to the surface before.

But this time round I have to congratulate Mazeni for what was a well thought-out and sincere piece which really sums up the predicament of many of us in the country.

There are, however, a number of points that I would like to take up with the author of the MATAHATI column and share with the readers as well.

Like Mazeni, I too believe that there is a desperate need for a strong, vocal and active opposition in this country - like anywhere else. Opposition parties play a crucial role in any democratic system and it is they who help to keep the machinery of any democratic system in full working order.

The opposition is, in many cases, the last check upon the excesses of the state and ruling elite, and without a strong opposition there might be no limits to the powers of any ruling group or party in a country.

But for that opposition to be a viable one, it also has to have one crucial element which is sadly missing in our own opposition movement in Malaysia: it has to be democratic.

Democracy without apologies

Democracy is not some flexible, plastic concept that can or should be played around with - at least, not without incurring a cost to its importance and credibility as a value in the political process itself.

One cannot use the term in a glib and rhetorical manner, as if it was some empty signifier devoid of content and signification. It is not enough for opposition movements and parties to call themselves 'democratic' - they must be seen to be democratic with no room for doubt.

That is why it was somewhat amusing for me to read Mazeni's article when he complained about the open and transparent nature of the dispute between PAS and DAP over the 'Islamic state' issue, which was one of the factors that contributed to the semi-collapse of the Barisan Alternatif (BA).

At one point in his article, Mazeni notes how he "watched in disbelief as the deputy presidents of the quarrelling parties continued their bickering in full view of the media, even as their colleagues in the coalition advised them to settle their arguments within the confines of a closed meeting room." Would it have been any better if we were kept uninformed and these discussions were done behind our backs, ostensibly for "our own good"?

The question remains: If the dispute over policy and orientation was not made public, where else could or should it have been aired?

A matter of such crucial importance - which affects not only the membership of all the component BA parties but also Malaysians in general - has to be brought to the attention of the public and not handled in backroom meetings between the top guns of the parties concerned.

In fact, it was the lack of transparency and openness from the beginning that clouded the issue even more and caused the Malaysian public to raise concerns over what might happen should the BA alliance come to power.

It is this fundamental lack of understanding of what democracy means that has brought all of us - and all the parties in Malaysia - to the impasse that we now face.

Living in such a de-politicised country has not helped the situation either, for it means that the conduct of politics is often carried out amidst a public whose understanding of politics is sometimes mixed with petty sentiments and prejudices as well.

Egos and ideals

For me, the real hope behind the BA alliance was that it might have brought about a deeper understanding of politics that goes beyond the parochial and exclusivist demands of communitarianism and/or personalised politics. Here is where the BA has singularly failed to make an impact.

> Rather than raising the level of public expectations vis-a-vis the conduct and practice of government itself, the component parties of the BA ended up being carbon copies of the ruling parties in the Barisan Nasional (BN).

Debates over crucial matters of economics and governance were eventually marginalised, thanks to the propensity of some of the BA parties to talk on and on about morality and religion instead. Rather than spell out an attractive and viable formula for a new economic model, the Malaysian public was fed with platitudes about moral conduct and moral policing instead.

Bread-and-butter economics gave way to the moral economy of the Mullahs and Imams, and in the process the non-Malay and non-Muslim constituencies could only ask themselves: Where do we fit into all this?

To compound the situation even further, the Keadilan party which was meant to make the major breakthrough by redefining the form and content of Malaysian political discourse failed completely and turned into a single-issue party dominated by the personality and ego of one man.

Every single one of its ideas (and many of them happened to be good ideas, incidentally) was eventually traced back to a single politician whose domineering personality and other-worldly aura coloured the conduct and practice of the party itself.

It seemed as if nothing new could enter the arena of Malaysian politics unless it was referred to the man himself, whose looming presence grew all the more greater thanks to his absence on the ground.

As the leaders of the BA - most notably the leaders of PAS and Keadilan - jockeyed for pole position in the race to up the stakes in the political struggle of the country, it seemed as if egos had taken over and that ideals were secondary.

The cult of leadership that was built around men like Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, Abdul Hadi Awang and Anwar Ibrahim made them larger-than-life characters who fit neatly into the wayang of kerajaan whose monochromatic moral logic pit the forces of 'good' against the forces of 'evil', embodied by the likewise exaggerated persona of the great " Mahazalim ", Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In a society where politics and theatre already intermingle with such promiscuous ease and where the boundary line between fact and fiction has been transgressed too many times, these developments did little to raise the level of political awareness and understanding among the populace.

Instead, all we had was a series of sandiwaras (staged acts) juxtaposed against each other: The Sauk/Al-Ma'unah fiasco versus the 'arsenic poisoning' drama; etc., etc. Have we got to the bottom of these mysteries?

The sad fact is that nobody really cares anymore as the jaded Malaysian public has been fed more and more outlandish stories on a daily basis.

Two own-goals in a row

Recent events brought to the fore the weaknesses and internal contradictions that have always been the Archiles heel of the BA itself. PAS' demonstration before the American embassy and Anwar Ibrahim's letter that came out in Time magazine showed just how far apart the parties of the BA really are, and how instrumental is the coalition between them.

PAS' demonstration turned out to be the best gift that the party could have given to the BN government right now. Just when the government of Mahathir was trying to gain support and recognition from the international community, PAS provided it with the justification for all the repressive laws in the country.

Here was PAS without the veil on: The image of hundreds of young, angry, frustrated and inarticulate young men yelling "Smash America", "destroy the West" and "We love jihad " did wonders to restore Umno and the BN's image as the sole credible power that could keep back the tide of religious extremism in the country. In a matter of minutes, PAS had inadvertently alienated itself from the non-Malay and non-Muslim sections of Malaysian society - as well as many other Malay-Muslims who do not share PAS' outlandish ideas about ' jihad ' against the West in order to save their friends the Taliban.

Then came the letter of Anwar Ibrahim that sent out the wrong message to all and sundry. Calling on the governments of the world to support the American-led war effort and claiming that this was not the time to question American policy, many who read it were left stunned and dumbfounded. If this was not the time to question US foreign policy, then when? (Even the American Secretary of Colin Powell admitted that the US would have to rethink its policies regarding the Middle East and the Palestinian question in particular.)

Real losers

Anwar's statement calling for the reform of politics in the South may have struck all the right notes in the eyes of many, but these were just as many who questioned how and why the party he formed (Keadilan) was in cohort with PAS, whose own approach to politics was so radically different to what Anwar espouses.

How could Keadilan - with all its concern for human rights, especially women's rights - remain in an alliance with PAS whose leaders not only sympathise with the Taliban but also agree with many of the Taliban's policies, including their deplorable and inhuman treatment of women in Afghanistan?

At this point, even the most plastic and flexible coalitions are bound to break and fall apart. Mazeni Alwi was right when he said that Keadilan's days may well be numbered. What is more the demise of Keadilan (and the eclipse of the already-marginalised PRM) will undoubtedly spell the end of the BA alliance, which was without doubt one of the most ambitious projects in recent Malaysian history.

But the real losers in all this has been the Malaysian public - as always. Malaysia and Malaysians desperately need an alternative approach to politics, and this could come from both the opposition or even the government in power.

But the changes that come need to go beyond cosmetic window-dressing and personality cults that give birth to dwarfs who pretend to be giants. Malaysia's 'new politics' has turned out to be stillborn, and part of the blame must rest on those agents of change who claimed to be the midwives of history.