One has only to observe the struggles in the Islamic Republic of Iran today to get a clear sense of the meaning of the assertion, 'why elections matter'. In his statement to Parliament (Majlis) on the mass resignation of some 124 of its 290 members, Reformist lawmaker Rajab Ali Mazrouie said: "An election whose results is clear beforehand is a treason to the rights and ideals of the nation."

The battle of the elected Reformist movement against the unelected Guardian Council has been on the boil for several weeks. Perhaps this was a contradiction written unwittingly into the structure of the state. With two key institutions, each referring to very different sources of legitimacy - one 'the people' and the other 'the will of God' - how was this clash of aspirations not anticipated.

The Council's role is to keep the democratic impulses of the enfranchised populace in line with the Islamic character of this country's constitution. This role has come under pressure in recent years due, among other factors, to a generation born after the revolution with very different expectations. Instead of negotiating these tensions - acting as a mechanism of checks and balance - the council decided to change the rules of the game. Having the power to approve or disqualify candidates for the election, the Council chose to eliminate its perceived opponents from the game, thus precipitating a crisis. Why participate in a game where the rules are designed to defeat you and the referees are not neutral?

The elected President Khatami's threats to resign, as well as not conduct elections, has not had the desired effect on the Council. He is reported to have said, "My government will only hold competitive and free elections." However, he finally acquiesced to the Council, while the Reformist boycotted the polls, leading to a victory for conservative forces. What long-term consequence this has for Iran is left to be seen.

Whatever criticism one might have about the democratic nature of Iranian society today, its undeniable that popular elections have over the last few years produced a very different Majlis than that which came after the Revolution. Iran is a just recent example of how modern political systems can become unstuck when they tamper with their system of 'free and fair' elections.

Significant marker

Elections are conducted in most countries in the international community; many that some might not even consider 'democratic'. Whether colonial governments, one-party Communist states, military juntas or liberal democracies, elections confer 'legitimacy' on governments, without which governments have only coercive means to rule. Indeed Malaysians might ask themselves why did the National Operations Council, which took control from Parliament in the aftermath of 'May 13', and which had governed by martial law, re-institute democratic elections in 1974.

Organising a mass casting of votes might be easy enough, making it meaningful to the participants is another thing altogether. While the formal structures of an election are important, the quality of its conduct is a significant marker of the democratic character of that system. Scholars like to make a distinction between what they call 'procedural democracy' and 'substantive democracy' as a way of not being blinded by the presence of formal institutional structures in analysing a country's democratic system. Questions of culture and society can then be factored into one's overall understanding of how the system creates forms of governance that are genuinely popular and representative.

While there have developed universal standards for the conduct of 'free and fair' elections, issues of representation and democratic governance are open ended notions that require constant debate. Re-opening the debate in Malaysia is an urgent task.

Lets begin with a reported fact: 1.2 million eligible voters have not registered to participate in the next general election. While this might only constitute ten percent of the total eligible citizens, its still worth contemplating. Is it a reflection of public indifference, a cumbersome registration process, a lack of information or a protest against the system?

While Malaysia's elections have generally been marked by high voter turn-out (as a percentage of registered voters), much of public life and policy making does not involve democratic participation. Apart from the voting in general elections for members of Parliament and state assemblies every five years, citizens have few opportunities to voice their concerns collectively to those who govern.

Indeed those who rule often assume that the vote cast for them during the general election is a mandate to govern unencumbered in the intervening years. While in some countries referendums are routine, and elections are held at many more levels of government, we seem to have developed democracy in a very narrow band.

'Distinct advantage'

Does this mean that Malaysia's democratic system scores high points for aspects of procedural democracy but low marks for 'substantive democracy'?

What of the representative character of the system - how far does it deviate from the principle of one person, one vote? Indeed, has gerrymandering (note, a word coined in the USA) based on ethnicity and party-affiliation dented the score on the procedural aspects of the system?

The Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections had this to say about our system: "Malaysia is a country which possesses a number of characteristics that appear promising for the conduct of free and fair elections. Its impressive human resources and infrastructure, the enthusiasm and interests of the Malaysian people to participate in the politics of their country, developments in information technology and its effective integration into the election process, are but some examples in this regard. Yet the promise of such elections is defeated by the current system of law and politics in Malaysia. This system has been developed and implemented in a manner which provides a distinct advantage to the ruling coalition." (July 2000)

This conclusion is not, however, definitive, and requires more debate. Investing resources and thinking about our democratic system - both procedural and substantive - is vital if we are to get the system to be genuinely responsive to the population it purports to serve. To this end, scholars and activists have attempted to point out problems of the system in order that reforms might be instituted before a crisis of legitimacy develops.

At Institut Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, one such study has been conducted. Under its ambit a range of institutions, practices and ways of thinking about democracy have come under scrutiny: issues relating to the process of voter registration, the accuracy of the electoral, limited access to information, practices that undermine voter secrecy, the absence of a genuine caretaker government to conduct elections, the pressures on the federal character of system, the weakening of the independence of the Election Commission, the less than full participation of women, the loss of local government elections, the politicisation of re-delineation exercise, the limits placed on NGOs and civil society engagement, limited democracy within political parties, the need for legal reform, and a host of other concerns have been put on the agenda for discussion.

Limited to a handful of scholars thus far, the discussion needs to be put to a wider audience. For it is a concerned and informed public whose demands for change which will eventually shift the system towards deepening democratic life in Malaysia. In the next four articles, we hope to introduce the public to a range of issues under four broad topics: first, the development of the political system; second, the importance of an informed citizenry; third, the workings of the Election Commission; and last, electoral reform and the prospects for greater democratization of Malaysian life. This is but the opening gambit for what must be a larger debate.

Tomorrow: Election: How it all began (Part 2)

This five-part series on elections were co-authored by Ikmas deputy director NORANI OTHMAN, Ikmas senior associate fellow MAVIS PUTHUCHEARY, Merdeka Centre's IBRAHIM SUFFIAN and freelance journalist SHARAAD KUTTAN.

Institut Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa (Ikmas) at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, is a social science research institute. Together with the generous assistance of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Ikmas has been conducting a study of the Malaysian electoral system of the past two years.