THE buzzword for this week is "emergency". It came late on Friday, and it replaced last week's "vote of no confidence", and before that it was "who has the numbers".
Alas, the volatility of our favourite national pastime. When previously we were talking about who had the majority, now we are talking about who has the promise of support.
Anyway, reports these few days suggest that the government of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is planning to declare a national emergency in the fight against the coronavirus.
Details from the government are nil and apart from pictures on social media of the prime minister and a coterie of ministers, politicians, senior civil servants and armed forces guys meeting the king — ingredients ideal for baking the emergency conspiracy — it has largely been a fill-in-the-blank opportunity for speculation.
Thus, we now have responses ranging from thoughtful, measured analyses to wild speculation to outrage of lightning-and-thunder proportion.
Hence, in the next few days, we can contemplate either a novel way to address Covid-19 or the end of democracy as we know it.
There are too many moving parts and too many people with vested interest, and too many people talking at the same time. At times, I am at odds with myself over what to believe and who I should listen to.
We have now a by-election, a looming Sarawak state election, as well as politicians ready at the gates, chomping to bits for a general election.
These, some suggest, and following the Covid-19 fallout of the recent Sabah polls, are reasons to declare an emergency lest the government falls foul of some aspects of the Constitution, such as when an election cannot be held.
While we are at it, many of us are speculating the nature of the emergency to be employed, if at all.
Will it be the suspension of parliamentary democracy as per the one after the racial riots of 1969? Or the 1948-1960 one declared by colonial Britain essentially to protect investments in tin mines and rubber plantations? Or perhaps an emergency allowing the government to suspend part of the democratic processes, like an election, or parliamentary sitting? Or drastic executive measures like currency control during the height of the Asian financial crisis?
Is Covid-19 worse than a racial riot or terrorist insurgency? At the moment, it does not seem so, but then again time will tell. It is a global issue with health, economic and security concerns, and no one knows where it could take us.
If indeed there were to be an emergency, the government must articulate it clearly, and soon. While we can be charitable in our thoughts of the prime minister's actions, many nevertheless are suggesting it is merely Muhyiddin's ploy to remain in office following suggestions that he has lost majority support.
Incidentally, we have also seen an unlikely participant in the form of the palace where some are using it to justify their politics and politicking, or trying to get cover from the pomp and purpose of the palace.
Since early this year, the gates of Istana Negara have seen politicians, from all sides of the aisles, being driven in and out, carrying letters and documents, with details of conversation we can only deduce.
I do not believe as a democracy we should be getting the palace to weigh in on political matters beyond the scope and function defined in a constitutional monarchy.
The Constitution is clear of the role and responsibilities of our elected officials and the royal houses, where the former would propose and govern and the latter would assent.
Thus, I am of the opinion, if indeed the current government decided to implement emergency measures, or alter its component parties, or reshuffle its cabinet, or call an election, such a plan should be thought out politically first, before getting the endorsement of the palace.
While it is wise and becoming to seek opinions and blessing from the king, for instance, the palace must not be co-opted into the messy work of governing. It should be protected to remain above the political fray and politicking.
I do believe political problems must be resolved by political means. It is after all the proverbial art of the possible; where we common folk would flounder, politicians would thrive.
If indeed the Constitution demands certain things, and the current situation discourages greatly, our elected leaders of all parties and stripes must come together, talk and come up with a solution that will take care of constitutional obligations as well as, say, the pandemic.
Even if it means having an election during a pandemic, we democrats would not like to surrender our means of determining the direction of the country even if we should all suffer the health consequence of unfettered politics. We will, however, remember them politicians, for that.
This is the burden and responsibility hoisted upon us by the Constitution. I believe that the political process should remain supreme and be allowed to carry out its course, and even be the final arbiter of our decision-making.
Ideally, an emergency, if it ever happens, should not come with a royal seal of approval.
The writer, a former NSTP group managing editor, is now a social media adviser and can be reached at zainulisa@gmail.com