I have been reading several articles and letters regarding the forthcoming PAS AGM published both in Harakahdaily as well as in several e-mailing lists.

Many of these give particular attention to the fact that there will be an all important internal election and many expect to see a change in the leadership line-up.

I cannot help but marvel at the number of articles and letters aimed at criticising those who lobby for positions in PAS. If they do not criticise, then they are at least urging PAS members not to get involved with lobbying as that very act seem to bring unwanted problems.

On the surface, the calls for non-lobbying for internal party positions seem very good indeed. But having read quite a few of them, I see confusion rather than clarity. Let me tell you why.

PAS want to elect its leaders democratically. For democracy to operate properly internally, the delegates need to know as much as possible about the candidates. And for the candidates to be known to the delegates, they need to be firstly introduced.

The candidates' strengths and weaknesses need to be described and debated. Their vision and capabilities must be understood. But how can these be achieved if lobbying is not allowed or if it is discouraged?

Those who are against lobbying seem to find it objectionable for candidates' weaknesses to be disclosed to others. They seem to want the weaknesses hidden away and not discussed at all. But, what is wrong with discussing candidates' weaknesses? If someone were to contest for a public post, then surely their suitability (or unsuitability for that matter) for that post should be discussed in public too.

After all, many PAS leaders have been discussing the weaknesses of Umno leaders. Why is it all right to discuss the weaknesses of Umno personalities but not those of PAS' own personalities? Oh no.... don't even dare to talk about it. But if you can do it outside of PAS, why not do it internally too?

Some quarters would argue that it is all right to elect leaders democratically but let us do it Islamically. The implication of that statement is, there is something about lobbying that is not Islamic. This is perplexing.

What is it about lobbying that is not Islamic? Are they really saying that voting without proper knowledge of the candidates' abilities, strengths and weaknesses is Islamic? If lobbying stops, will that be Islamic enough?

What is more perplexing is that the very people who are against lobbying also call for an election based on the credibility of candidates. How will you know about someone's credibility if lobbying is not allowed?

If I were to nominate A for a post, I will need to tell the delegates about A's credibility. And if I feel that B is less credible than A, should I stay mum? Is it Islamic to keep quiet when you feel that people may make a mistake when voting?

Unfortunately, as soon as I start telling others about A's credibility, and B's weaknesses, I would be lobbying, and there seem to be something wrong with lobbying. How else am I supposed to promote the candidate that I feel is more credible if I am not allowed to lobby?

Reduction of space

Most interestingly, several people within PAS are also saying that those who lobby are falling into the trap of the party's enemies. By lobbying, they are weakening the party. By lobbying, they are introducing un-Islamic things into PAS. What they have overlooked is the fact that I can also say that the effort to prevent members from lobbying could also originate from the enemies of PAS.

If the 'enemies' believe that PAS in its current state is weak and divided, then of course they would want to keep the status quo. Thus, they would not want any lobbying to occur as it may end up with a change for the better. Change scares the enemies. So, they want us to keep things as they are. What is the best way to prevent change? Thwart any efforts to lobby for change and the 'enemies' would have a field day after the AGM.

By preventing open lobbying, two things would result. Firstly, lobbying would be conducted secretively and those who do lobby risk being ostracised. This is surely unhealthy. Secondly, voters will only vote for people they already know. They cannot judge based on capabilities.

They surely cannot judge new faces who do not as yet have any track-record that can be gauged. These newcomers can only be introduced to the electorates via lobbying and concerted campaigning. By making lobbying a sinful act, PAS is really reducing the space for change. Once again, this too is unhealthy.

After all, what is wrong with lobbying? PAS does this all the time. They lobby for positions in government in every election. They lobby to become leaders of the country. Why does lobbying suddenly become wrong when it comes to choosing party leaders? Why is lobbying acceptable outside the party but sinful internally?

If they now call for a cessation of internal lobbying because it is apparently un-Islamic, will they legislate to prevent electoral campaigning if PAS were to come to power on the same premise?

It is indeed very easy to say that lobbying, campaigning, etc are bad. But please tell me what alternative is there? How can PAS ensure that delegates make informed decisions when voting day comes if lobbying and campaigning are not allowed? The key word here is 'informed decision'. Is there really an alternative to lobbying?

If I have a choice, I would say that everyone should go all out to lobby for votes. PAS is a political party working within a democracy. If proper democracy cannot be practised internally, then what authority does PAS have to go outside and fight for democracy? Does PAS want to become another mini-autocracy like Umno?

The real answer, if PAS wants to properly practise democracy internally, is to create a culture of lobbying based on Islamic values and ethics. Running away from the challenge by closing the door to critical examination of each candidate is not the answer.

'Islamic' approach

I believe that there is a way to lobby Islamically.

As an organisation, PAS should allow and encourage candidates to say what they believe in. PAS should encourage open discussion among delegates on the suitability of each and every candidate. PAS should create a method to enable members to critically and systematically examine the capabilities of each candidate.

Members, especially delegates, must listen to all sides. PAS should give every candidate ample time to present and defend their vision to delegates. And PAS must ensure that all candidates, from those contesting the presidency to committee posts, are able and willing to listen and respond to questions and critical examination of their abilities and weaknesses.

As for the candidates, they must be willing to be quizzed. The candidates must be willing to proclaim their vision for the party. The candidates must be willing to stand up and say, "This is my vision for the party". The candidates must be ready to defend their ideas and critically appraise the ideas of others. This would force the candidate to form a vision. Surely there is no harm in that.

Most importantly, as individuals working in a respectable and well-established Islamic movement, PAS members should learn to agree to disagree healthily. PAS members must learn to accept the decision of the syura once the election results are announced. They should be willing to give their wala' (obedience) to the leaders once they are constitutionally elected.

All divisions and differences must be put aside after the election and the focus must be on strengthening the party. PAS members must adhere strictly to Allah's command to obey Allah, Rasul and the leaders amongst them. Working together to strengthen the party once the election is over is of utmost importance.

After all, the world has already been shown that healthy lobbying is possible. US Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards fought one another healthily to get their party's nomination. Once Kerry received the party's backing, Edwards accepted defeat and subsequently agreed to team up with Kerry.

They were rivals when it was time to show rivalry. They teamed up when it was time to team up. They fought each other healthily before the party made the decision. But once the decision has been made, they worked together wholeheartedly for the sake of the party. From rivals, they become running mates. Surely this is an example of Islamic ethos.

Are we saying that these two people know more about Islamic values than those wanting to be the future leaders of PAS? Come on...

WAN SAIFUL WAN JAN is currently conducting research in business ethics, with a particular focus on corporate social responsibility, at Middlesex University Business School, London. His main interests are philosophy of management, business ethics, and politics - particularly the dynamics of British and Malaysian politics. In terms of political leaning, he is still undecided whether he is on the centre-left or centre-right, although he believes that he definitely belongs somewhere at the 'centre'.