In an article in The Malay Mail last Saturday entitled ‘Local Democracy: More politics or less?’, the author, Liew Chin Tong, mentioned that “While many urge local council elections, there are also some activists who urge ‘less politics, more professional appointments’ to the local councils.” He ended the article by stating his stand, “Should we have more politics at local level? I (Liew CT) say ‘yes’.”

The Coalition of Good Governance (CGG) would like to stress that people must be at the heart of governance. In creating liveable cities through sustainable development, there is a need for transparency and a system of checks and balance that involves the people. This must manifest itself in institutionalised governance structures at all level of government e.g. local council elections.

Local Agenda 21 (LA21) advocated for a tri-sectoral partnership between government, businesses and communities. While the government’s role is to watch over the well-being of the communities, ensuring that the people are not exploited by businesses, the relationship between government and businesses had become too cosy for governance to be effective. Hence LA21 had sought the involvement of the community sector.

Below are some of the points raised and our views on it.

1. We agree on your point that Park Woon Soon, a human rights lawyer-turned social activist-turned-mayor of Seoul twice, is a good example that members of civil society can contribute to government. You also quoted Joko Widodo (Jokowi) who gained credibility as an administrator and rose to become the president of Indonesia, beating a candidate from an elite background.

Election of mayors is an ideal we support as this will ensure that the duty of the mayor is towards its residents and not his political master.

2. It was also mentioned that “For nearly 40 years since the Act has been enforced there were very few councillors who had achieved professional ‘distinction’. To assume that professionals are better at representing the community’s interests is unrealistic. To assume that one can abolish politics at local level is simply naïve”.

In the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ), back in 2008 when a full team of NGO councillors were appointed, there were many professionals and academics who excelled. In fact the highest rated councillor in the state of Selangor was an NGO councillor whose outstanding performance was officially recognised by the Selangor state government.

It is sad to see that such good councillors were rested from service under a ‘two-term’ rule which was inconsistently applied to NGO councillors. This creates a perception that good and upright councillors are removed as they are seen to be obstacles to party patronage. This practice has totally eliminated NGO councillors to only one in the whole of Selangor when during elections NGO councillors were supposed to occupied one quarter of the council.

The statement that there should be more politics in local council is therefore dangerous as it suggests that the state government is officially dis-empowering civil society instead of working with the civil society. This will be bad governance and will open the way for BN-like practices where cronies put party interest ahead of public interests

3. “Without devolving powers and roles of the federal government to the states, and without redesigning the local councils, local elections would give rise to a competition for power between the states and the local authorities (which is not the intent of those who advocate for local democracy)”. - It is not the intention for advocates of local democracy to insist on a 100 percent instant changeover to local council election.

There is a public education process that needs to be in place and there is also a phased approach starting off with a small percentage of council seats that is open for elections. Such an election was discussed in detail for Selangor with Petaling Jaya identified as a pilot site but there was no political will to go ahead.

Gradually opening up the three-tier system of gov’t

The blame was also placed on PAS as the obstacle towards local council elections. In the present political situation will PKR and DAP show some leadership in this area? Using a phased approach, the state government should have no fear about a conflict situation between state and local authorities as the majority of seats are not open for election. This will gradually open up again the three-tier system of government, adding another layer of check-and-balance.

On the contrary, there is a great danger of pursuing with the direction of dismissing local council elections:

1. Loss of credibility. All the promises and declaration on bringing back the third tier of government during elections are now suspected as empty promises to lure voters.

2. Weakness in current appointment system. There is too much of politicking in the current appointment process. More than once, there were delays in councillors being appointed because of prolonged power plays. Politicians fighting to place their proxies into the council as a reward to their supporters forego the need to ensure that qualified candidates are chosen.

In one case, the driver of a local politician was nominated to be a councillor but thankfully that did not materialise. However, we have had councillors that had worked against the poorer members of a constituency but yet there is no avenue of action against such councillors even though complaints were made to the highest level of the state government.

3. Disempowering the citizens. While delaying local council election, the elimination of the NGO quota of councillors is a clear indication that the lust of power has overtaken principles of democracy and governance. This is a clear message that citizens should only be involved in voting during elections while in between elections they are to entrust all forms of government to the elected representatives. This is a practice that is no longer accepted by civil society.

4. Divergence with the civil society. Prior to the run up of any election it seems that the aspirations of the civil society is very similar to political parties, advocating for greater transparency and governance. The subsequent implementation sends a different message.

5. No changes until Putrajaya is achieved. It was suggested in the article that “without devolving powers and roles of the federal government to the states” there is limited powers of the state to bring in changes. This is a mentality not shared by the civil society. The state has enough powers to transform the effectiveness of the local council, but in two terms little progress is made.

At best with three political factions helming the councils of all local authorities, all we can see is ad hoc responses to long term problems. While there is a need for structural and systemic response to the council operations, the council members of different qualification levels, motivation and agenda will not be able to approach such problems in a systemic manner.

The former secretary-general of United Nations, Kofi Annan, once said, “Citizens no longer want to be passive observers of development, they want to be active participants in sustainable development”.

Let there be more citizens empowerment and participation.

Should we have more politics at local level? We (the civil society) say “No”.

JERALD JOSEPH and JEFFREY Phang are co-chairpersons of the Coalition of Good Governance (CGG).