The "will of the people" is a phrase often repeated in politics. It is seen as the overarching principle in democracy — we elect people to represent us, so that they can help us realise our wishes and attend to our fears.
Armed with our will (read: votes), elected representatives are to speak for us in Parliament and state assemblies. Every few years, they will ask us to pick them again, promising us the same or better.
How is the will of the people being used by politicians? Is it to improve governance and eradicate corruption? To improve the quality of our lives? To grow the economy? To make us proud of our country? Is it to help us get by, especially in these trying times?
The list surely goes on but, essentially, it is the manifestation of our dreams laid out at the polling booths. Yet, I often feel uneasy when a politician or political party says they are carrying out the will of the people. For one, governments in a democracy are often formed by victors who attained only a simple majority, either on their own or via a coalition. The reward for winning an election is the right to form a government and to govern.
Sometimes, however, governments forget that while they might have been voted in, it could just be by a hair's breath above 50 per cent. However, in the excitement of being able to govern, many victors forget that almost half of voters had chosen their opponents.
Many confuse securing a mandate to govern with carte blanche to go about as they please. The will of the people cannot be taken for granted to have come from everyone, especially those who voted against them.
However, at times, the arrogance of the victorious and their supporters will often see them running roughshod over the feelings of the vanquished. Human nature suggests that crowing in victory is a natural but unfortunate trait.
While this is not a treatise on the fall of Pakatan Harapan, I have always felt that part of the internal implosion that led to its demise was due to the souring of the government's image among those who voted against it.
From telling everyone how bad six decades of the previous government's policies and leaders were to unpicking and undoing everything because they could, it was implied that anyone who had any sympathy for the vanquished or suggested that not everything was bad would be castigated, at times forgetting that those people make up almost half the voters.
Political dynamics within the coalition were fragile, but few were in the mood to recognise it. As the victors enjoyed the victory and the claim to have the will of the people, their euphoria should not have slighted the defeated.
For instance, the ban on smoking at restaurants and the unwillingness to bend, while noble in cause, was seen as an example of "I know what I am doing". It made it easy for their opponents to paint yet another picture of arrogance.
The victor's mandate to govern, which was attained only by a simple majority, is being confused with getting wholesale approval from the entire populace.
Our nation is as plural as plurality can be, and anyone who claims to represent all or the will of everyone must surely be cursed with a propensity for indulgence and with over-exaggerating his influence. Realpolitik, unfortunately, came late due to the euphoria of a historic win.
This, however, is not unique to Malaysian politics. Politicians the world over have the tendency to use "the will of the people" to justify their actions at will.
These days, I feel the phrase is used to get more mileage when some politicians want to justify their actions in the political arena — be it when they switch sides, manoeuvre for positions or plot against opponents, etc.
Are all political scheming and posturing done to carry out our will? Perhaps I am wrong, but it feels like the will of the people is the last thing on their minds.
For instance, the current government's tenuous hold on power through a seemingly creaky coalition is being used to beat it into submitting to demands that are largely political. The 2021 Budget is now a political bargaining chip, a proxy vote for keeping the administration in Putrajaya.
My question is, how is such politicking working for the interest of the people, many of whom are reeling from the prolonged health and financial pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic?
Is it the will of the people to have the uncertainties brought by the pandemic turned into a political exigency to lead the charge for a regime change? Or can we have the real will of the people — which is to survive the uncertainties of a pandemic — be realised first before the will of politicians becomes the top agenda?
The writer, a former NSTP group managing editor, is now a social media adviser
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times