The conduct of elections in this country are very much Janus-faced. While they give the impression that they are the avenues for popular participation and for the furtherance of democracy, the actual history of elections in the country indicates that they have been used mainly for legitimating the hegemonic enterprise of the BN ethnic coalition.

While they provide some mechanisms for the dissident forces to crack the hegemony of the BN, elections can never be used to attain national power. In fact, elections in this country merely promotes the semblance of procedural democracy without any substance for the pursuance of substantive democracy. In this respect, elections are basically Janus-faced.

Any analysis of the victory of the BN must be understood within the Gramscian framework of hegemony fortified by coercion. The propaganda that it is only the BN can bring about development, ensure inter-ethnic peace, provide broad forms of ethnic representation and that there is no alternative except the BN has sunk deeply into the psyche of ordinary Malaysians long accustomed to reading and digesting propaganda unleashed by the mass media.

At the same time, many Malaysian have come to believe that the dissident forces comprised of opposition parties are extreme in their thinking, devoid of any political vision and not the least engaged in fragmentary politics. Of course, such a king of hegemony has been maintained through the applications of laws and regulations.

The BN's hegemonic position explains not only its continued longevity in politics but also how it creates conditions and circumstances for periodic electoral victories. In this respect, elections in the country are basically constituted to provide the mandate and legitimation for the regime.

Beyond this, elections have limited relevance for the promotion of people's participation, for checking the abuse of power, protection of the interests and concerns of numerically smaller nationalities, providing for alternative forms of representation and not the least promotion of real or substantive democracy.

In other words, a general election function in the Malaysian context is basically to advance the hegemonic objectives of the present BN regime. Given this, one wonders how a newly elected BN government could provide effective representation for ethnic groups like Indians.

It pains me to see ordinary Indians, victims of hegemonic politics, being mobilised by the self-seeking politicians in the MIC, PPP and IPF to campaign for the BN government - the real oppressor of Indians in the country.

Is this an example of false consciousness or do ordinary Indians think that they have no alternatives but to throw their lot in with this coalition? The real problem for Indians in the country is that there is no effective and capable leadership. It is this leadership vacuum that has provided the opportunistic leadership in the MIC, PPP and IPF the chance to subordinate the larger interests of the community to those in these parties.

Whether Indian political parties get extra seats or not is not going to make difference to the Indian community. Elections might come and go, but they are not going to change the political, social and economic conditions of Indians in the country.

They will be continued to be exploited by the present regime and so-called Indian 'representatives.' The dropping of S Subramaniam from the MIC is no big deal, it means nothing to Indians.

Samy Vellu can make all kinds of promises to the community, but in the end he is the obedient servant of the Malay elite in Umno. M Kayveas and P Pandithan, in different ways, have tarnished and wrecked the image of the community. Indians must think and act very carefully; they must look for an alternative leadership that will be brave, progressive and dynamic.