More political choice or chaos?

“So, how many political parties are there in Peninsular Malaysia these days anyway?”

As a journalist, that’s the question I hear most often—whether on assignment or over dinner with friends. More often than not, I respond with a shrug and a weary roll of the eyes.

Not too long ago, politics felt relatively straightforward. We had Umno, MCA, MIC, PAS, DAP and PKR. Choose from among them, Malaysians were told.

Today, keeping track of Malaysian parties is like trying to memorise the cast of a reality show.

Ten years ago, Umno spawned Bersatu, which in turn splintered into Muda, Pejuang and now Wawasan. All three are in the opposition.

Meanwhile, PAS—itself a pre-Merdeka Umno splinter—has seen its own breakaways: Berjasa, Ikatan, Putra and Amanah, perhaps the most successful of them all.

Then there is PSM, PRM, Urimai, and Bersama, formed by PKR departee Rafizi Ramli, and a host of others.

Yes, this is democracy at work. Voters dissatisfied with Umno, PKR, DAP or PAS should have alternatives. Competition keeps established parties on their toes and offers Malaysians more choices.

But in almost every case, the proliferation of parties stems from disagreements with leadership.

Earlier this year, the long-running spat between PKR’s Anwar Ibrahim and his one-time number two, Rafizi Ramli, spilled once again into the public domain. It ended with Rafizi losing his party post, resigning from his ministerial position, and leaving PKR to form Bersama.

The conflict between Bersatu’s Muhyiddin Yassin and Hamzah Zainudin has lasted just as long.

Hamzah was sacked, lost his position as opposition leader, and left in limbo. Yet he has returned stronger with Wawasan — seemingly backed by many Bersatu leaders and members, and, more critically, PAS.

But elections do not end with the ballot count. Winning a handful of seats is no longer enough.

Unless one coalition secures a clear majority, parties must negotiate, compromise and work — paradoxically, even with the very persons they once denounced — to form a government.

We saw this play out after the 15th general election, when the pendulum swung wildly between Pakatan Harapan and Perikatan Nasional before settling into the creation of the unity government with Anwar at the helm.

The paradox is striking: many parties are born because politicians cannot work with their former colleagues. Yet if they win seats, they may eventually have to cooperate with their political opponents anyway.

This raises uncomfortable questions.

Will these parties join forces with those they spent months attacking on the campaign trail? Can such coalitions survive a full term? Or will Malaysians once again witness political manoeuvring, threats of withdrawal and instability whenever disagreements arise?

If every election produces more parties, more fragmentation and more bargaining, voters may begin to wonder if are they truly getting more choices or simply more chaos?

Perhaps the answer lies in honesty. In an era defined by coalition politics, voters deserve clarity not only about what a party promises before an election, but also about whom it is prepared to work with afterwards to form a government.

At the end of the day, Malaysians want unity, continuity, stability and leaders who deliver on their campaign pledges.

The writer is a senior journalist with FMT’s English Desk.

This article represents the writer’s opinion and does not necessarily reflect FMT’s position.