Parliamentary politics is often a game of mirrors - if you will excuse this writer for a somewhat vague metaphor. What I mean by this is that political parties often end up mirroring their nemesis, and more often than not they end up reflecting the concerns of the Other side.

It is for this reason that for a society to evolve towards a more democratic and civil state it has to bring into the equation an opposition that is democratic and civil in nature.

Ruling regimes in turn are often conditioned by their opponents who face them in the respective houses of parliament, national assemblies or senates.

Try as they might, no ruling elite can get away with anything as long as there is an active and vocal opposition to check their advances.

The executive's tendency to over-stretch its power and sphere of influence into the public and private domains can only be curtailed if and when an opposition emerges that can halt this slide towards authoritarianism by emphasising the strict distinctions and frontiers between the state and private life, the public and private spheres, and so on.

But what has happened in many developing countries - particularly in the Muslim world - is the rise of opposition groups and parties whose ideologies are fundamentally conservative and reactionary in nature.

In the case of Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Bangladesh, Iraq,

Iran and others, the failure of the post-colonial secular developmental state has resulted in the alienation of the masses and the retreat to the discourse of traditionalism and conservatism.

The reasons for this are clear for those with an understanding of the mechanics of politics: during the post-colonial era many a post-colonial Muslim society embarked on a process of rapid, unfettered (and often misguided) development that led to uneven distribution of wealth, the empowerment of a coterie of business, political and military elites, and the marginalisation of the poor.

These regimes were very much inspired by the developmental model of the West, but they failed to understand that economic and material development in the Northern hemisphere was also accompanied by class formation, the creation of civil society institutions and was tempered by the rule of law.

The Muslim world instead was dished out a handful of Westernised elites (many of whom were in the pay of their sponsors, the USA, Britain and France): The Shah of Iran, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, Anwar Saddat of Egypt, Soeharto of Indonesia ( photo ), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, et al who were all inspired by the models of development in the West but less inspired by the spirit of democratic pluralism that underpinned Western economic and social development.

Negative outcome

As they pursued their development strategies and programmes, they also ended up alienating themselves from their masses and made the mistake of blaming religion and culture for all that was wrong in their countries.

The net result was rapid eurocentric development that was underscored by a culture of nepotism, corruption and greed and an unstable economic-political system that could only be maintained by force and violence.

Another negative outcome of this trend was the radicalisation of the Islamic opposition, who soon came to be seen as the custodians of the past, hallowed tradition and cultural identity. As massive social dislocation and anomie became the norm, the Mosque became the final refuge for the dispossessed and marginalised; and the ulama became the heroes of the poor.

The same has been the case here in Malaysia. Malaysia's rapid development in the 1980s and 1990s led to growing gaps between the urban rich and rural poor, and the alienation of vast swathes of Malaysian society.

The Mahathir administration favoured the creation of a new elite of Malay 'Umnoputra' millionaires and entrepreneurs, while it was PAS that gained the most when it soaked up the resentment and frustration of the marginalised and neglected sections of Malaysian society.

The rise of PAS therefore should be read as an index to the failure of Umno and the BN's nation-building strategy; proof, if any was needed, that capitalism and nation-building are not good partners and that one cannot create a united nation via a sectarian ideology that encourages possessive individualism and greed.

The final result has been a distorted politics where both Umno and PAS have tried to out-Islamise each other in the Islamisation race they themselves initiated, and the erosion of democratic values in our society.

It is for this reason that we need to vote into office an opposition that is committed to plural democracy and structural reform.

Universal justice

On Sunday, we all know that the ruling BN coalition will come to power yet again. The concern of progressive liberals and democrats ,however, is that once again it will be PAS that will dominate the opposition, and that this in turn will ensure that political Islam will remain the as the nexus of Malaysian politics.

Should this happen, Malaysian politics and its political culture will be distorted even further in the years to come, as both PAS and Umno have shown no inclination to concentrate on structural-economic matters and make those the primary concepts of Malaysian political discourse.

This article is not and should not be read as an appeal on the part of Keadilan or the DAP. But it is a prognosis of what will happen if the more democratic parties in the country are allowed to meet their untimely end come polling day.

Malaysia needs democratic reform, based on values of universal justice and predicated on the central principle of universal citizenship.

We need to create a political culture where racial or religious communitarianism can no longer thrive and cause damage to social relations in the country. We need an opposition that can raise democratic concerns in Parliament that would reflect the needs and wants of a plural society that is the reality in Malaysia.

For that reason we need to vote into office as many prospective Members of Parliament who have made plural democracy their political agenda and ideological compass.

Malaysia cannot continue down the path it has been heading for the past two decades. We have seen the disastrous results of the Islamisation race between Umno and PAS; how it has prompted leaders of both parties to resort to the worst in times of crisis - from supporting the Taliban to making the most outrageous racist, anti-semitic statements in public.

We have seen how this Islamisation race has been used to police the private lives of Muslims, and how it has divided Malaysian society along both racial and religious lines even further.

Break the mirror

Another decade of authoritarianism masked in the discourse of religiosity will spell the doom of the Malaysian project itself, and by the time we get to a Malaysian Islamic state it will no longer matter if Umno or PAS is in power.

For such a state would be more akin to the religious authoritarian regime of the time of General Zia'ul Haq of Pakistan, an experiment which has blighted that country till today.

So for the sake of Malaysia, Malaysians of all races and creeds, and the Malaysian project itself; go out and vote for the parties that have made a plural democratic Malaysian Malaysia their goal.

We need to break the vicious cycle of Umno and PAS mirroring each other's discourse in Parliament. We need to break the mirror that has disfigured the face of Malaysian society and politics for so long!

DR FARISH A NOOR is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist. His 'The Other Malaysia' column appears in malaysiakini .