The systematic and intermittent use of repression, police brutality, detentions without trial, attacks on innocent people and others seems to be the overt signs of a regime that has failed to legitimatise itself in the eyes of the Malaysian public.

It is the absence of political and cultural mechanism for the purpose of regime legitimation that has propelled the present regime to undertake repressive and undemocratic measures to quell the various forms of public dissent.

In other words, the frequent and consistent use of repression more widely that before is a sign that the present regime finds it difficult to convince Malaysians that it has the right formula to address the fundamental grievances of Malaysians; grievances that have been building for more than 40 years in the country.

More specifically, it is the inability of the regime to resolve myriad problems of the society that has propelled it to undertake repressive measures, as though these would dilute the various forms of dissent. Years of corruption, misuse of political power, bailing out of parties close to the governmental elite, misuse of public funds, selective prosecution of individuals, police brutality, racism of the worst kind, and ethnic discrimination have not endeared the present regime to the Malaysian public - either Malays, Chinese or Indians.

Ethnic groups that have no animosity with one other, merely wanting to live side by side in peace and harmony, find it difficult to do so because of the hatred sowed by the regime. It was a natural development on the part of regime in crises when as a last resort its principal proponent, Umno, went to revive Malay unity as though such as device would throw asunder other political formations that have been nurtured by other broader social concerns.

Malay hegemony

But then reviving Malay hegemony for the purposes of politically buttressing Umno was not that easy. The general reluctance of PAS and Keadilan to go along with it represented a colossal failure on the part of Umno to project Malay hegemony as the political agenda. Thus when all else fails, the regime controlled and manipulated by Umno and by its cronies, having no ideas in their arsenal, gravitate invariably towards the use of repression to control and depress the progressive forces of society.

In the final analysis, the use of the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) becomes a logical consequence of the rotten regime to safe itself and its cronies so that the present outmoded political order based on Malay hegemony could continue unabated ensuring that a few can benefit under the umbrella of security provided by the ISA.

No corrupt and anachronistic regime gives up power voluntarily; world history is a excellent testimony to this. There is no reason why the present regime or some of its key leaders would relinquish their power. There is too much at stake for them, their families and friends, to give up power that easily.

But then these are the ones who have the audacity to talk about responsible opposition, the use of elections to replace the government, responsible opposition and others. But then rules of the various political games are changed so often as to render the playing field very uneven. The saying that elections serve as a mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power must be taken with a huge dose of salt.

While elections are important, in many instances these are very often abused by those in power. But given the rules, regulations and mechanisms that govern the conduct of elections in countries like Malaysia, it becomes nearly impossible for the opposition to capture national power. The mere winning of political power in some states does not necessarily mean that national power could be captured that easily.

Economic realm

Of course, the regime's legitimacy is related to the larger economic realm. In post-independence Malaysia, extreme and overt use of repression by the regime has been related to the state of economy. If the economy does well, if there is employment, if the share market is quite dynamic, and people doing well in business, foreign companies readily coming into Malaysia to invest and others, there is tendency for the regime to take the soft approach to deal with dissent.

But when the economy is having crises, there is growing unemployment, lay-offs, share market is in doldrums and others, then the regime is shaky and more often than not authoritarian measures are utilised to quell dissent as though such acts would revive the economy and political stability.

It seems quite apparent that the economic resuscitating measures following the financial crises by the regime has not been very successful in reviving the economy. Perhaps it is not so much economic measures that we need at the moment but more far-reaching political changes to convince foreign investors and others that we are on a democratic and egalitarian path.

Unfortunately, it does not cross the mind of the political elite that the real problem is the way it is governing the country. Rather than looking for imaginary outside enemies, it should rethink the entire political strategy of its racial formula built and sustained under the most repressive authoritarian order. Unless this is done, there is no way the utilisation of authoritarian measures to quell dissent in the country could really resolve the present problems.

Of course, the regime should be mindful of another historical fact that repression might temporarily postpone things, but it would not be able to stop the need for far-reaching changes urgently required by the masses in the country. Let us not wait for history to give its final verdict.

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.