Growing pains in PAS

Last week’s debate on the floor of Indera Melia Stadium in Ipoh points to the deep soul-searching that PAS is undergoing as it moves from a parochial to a national party.

The growing pains within the party are not unexpected. Every Islamist party faces the challenge of moderation, the challenge of reflecting a national constituency of supporters seeking inclusive better governance rather than a narrow band of advocates pushing for an exclusionary religious theocracy.

Yet, the transformation for PAS is deeper than redefining its ideological core. It involves restructuring the decision-making process within the party, curbing personal infighting and ambition and moving mindsets away from the racial and patronage hand-out frameworks that unfortunately continue to dominate Malaysian politics. These different outlooks place immense strain on the party internally and limit its ability to be an effective national player in politics.

PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang revealed how confused the party is in its ideological agenda in his speech in Ipoh. The theme of the muktamar was ‘PAS for all’ but his speech failed to provide any substantive indicator of inclusion for non-Muslims.

Rather than thank non-Muslims for their support for the party in 2008 polls – and acknowledge their pivotal role in the victory in two of the three state governments PAS is leading and over a third (8 of 23 or 34.8 percent) of the parliament seats it won, Hadi returned to an old theme reminiscent of that which caused the party massive losses in 2004 – ‘Islamic state for all’.

The common theme in both platforms is the deeply flawed belief that once non-Muslims are “educated” they will understand and follow. At its core, this parochial orientation shows how little this PAS leader understands the communities that make up 40 percent of Malaysia and even more troubling, reveals a lack of appreciation of other religions.

Hadi’s speech seems to forget that every seat the party gained – with perhaps the exception of Sik, Jerai and Baling – were won primarily with non-Muslim support. Otherwise, the party’s base is confined to in the rural Malay heartland. It is only on the national stage as a result of non-Muslim support.

Ironically, the delegates from the party – even those from the Malay heartland areas of Terengganu, Kedah and Pahang – rebuked their leader in this narrow mindset in the debate and in a subsequent press conference, Hadi reaffirmed the right of non-Muslims to practice their own social and religious traditions in Pakatan Rakyat governments, but the fact stands that from the top – as evident in the national speech that sets the party’s tone – the outlook appears ethnically exclusionary.

Hadi Awang’s parochial view

The reasons for the persistence of this parochial view lie with what Hadi apparently perceives to be the constituency base and ideological foundation of PAS. Perhaps mirroring his own views, he appears to (mistakenly) see the party’s base as those rejecting moderation.

From his discourse, Hadi appealed directly to the conservative ulama in the party – whose focus in government is on the application of Islamic law – rather than on those who see anti-corruption and injustice as the main Islamic principles to advocate and uphold, the same principles that can appeal across religions. Hadi appears to conceive the party’s ideology narrowly, rather the reach out to the broad national base of the party or, even more importantly, the outlook of the majority of voters who put his party in office.

This difference in ideological outlook – between exclusion and inclusion – is complicated by race. No question, since March, the articulation of ketuanan Melayu or ‘Malay supremacy’ discourse has been touted as a means for Umno to rebuild its base. Within parts of PAS’s leadership, it has struck a chord and underscored the dialogue between the two parties.

The reasons for reaching across the traditional polarised Malay political divide between Umno and PAS are complicated. For some in PAS, they have bought into the perception that divisions within the Malays weaken the articulation of the Islamic agenda. This has been touted not only by leaders, but also by many Muslim non-governmental organisations that have become more adamant as the Article 11 and 121(A) debate has unfolded.

Joining forces with Umno is seen by some in PAS as the means to advocate their ideological vision. They believe that under Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, they are more able to implement Islamic law than with their Pakatan partners. They appear willing to dismiss years of criticising corruption in Umno and race-based politics to attain the implementation of their ideals.

They fail to realise that the Umno route is as exclusionary as the other theme highlighted above in Hadi’s speech. While the delegates in the muktamar strongly rejected the idea of joining Umno, Hadi’s own criticism of Umno was tepid.

Although the decision has been made not go down the Umno route (at least for now) – in large part due to the pressure from the grassroots and other leaders within PAS, namely spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat – the fact remains that is this is an option now on the table.

This points to real differences in how the party should embrace a national agenda. One path is through a racial exclusionary route. The other is through moderation and inclusiveness.

Ironically, PAS has explicitly rejected race-based politics in the past. The reason that it has been so effective in mobilising its own Malay base is through the post-1998 appeal for the perceived abuses of power by Umno.

Regularly, PAS leaders have acknowledged the recognition that one should not judge a person by their race, but by their actions. It is no wonder muktamar delegates spoke of the grassroots as feeling betrayed and confused. They cannot fathom the use of ‘dirty’ means to achieve ‘clean’ ends, since they know that once one gets dirty, it is indeed hard to get clean.

Personal over party interests?

The muktamar debate and leadership rebukes showed that the delegates have a closer pulse to the grassroots and that many in the party base appear eager to articulate a moderate ideological vision, one in which that finds commonalities in ideals across religion and races. Unfortunately, the internal angst within PAS stemmed not only from ideology.

The reasons for the appeal to work with Umno also have to do with personality and power. PAS does not like being the ‘third’ party in the coalition. Unlike the 1990 and 1999 polls – in which PAS made the most gains through cooperation – the Islamic party has the third number of seats at the national level. It believes (legitimately in many cases) that is was PAS machinery that underscored the victory of Pakatan candidates.

Some believe that they have not been rewarded adequately with positions and recognition, and believe they can get this with Umno. They perceive winning government as a bounty of rewards to distribute in patronage rather than as an arena to debate ideas, formulate policies, check abuses of state funds and implement decisions.

This difference over the spoils of power are real, and suggest that some in PAS have yet to embrace a new way of governing, one in which transparency prevents abuses of power and selective patronage is replaced with more inclusive policy.

While the muktamar debate avoided personal attacks, whispers about moral character and personal interest echoed through the stadium. Personality politics within PAS has reemerged as a major source of leadership division, as it did in the late 1970s. These divisions seriously hurt the party then, as it revealed disconnect between the leadership interests and the party grassroots.

Since 1999, consensus decision-making has usually masked and mended personal differences within the party. Gone is the clear line of difference between ‘ulama’ and ‘professionals’ that many in PAS argue was never clear. Now it is a time of personality and principles in undeclared contests for power.

Often in lean times, parties face keener contests for power. For PAS, the opposite is true; the electoral success of the party has brought those interested in position out of the woodwork and created tensions within the party. Unless adequately addressed, negative perceptions of leaders motivated by personal interests will likely percolate and play out in party elections next year.

Tomorrow: Who can PAS trust?

---

DR BRIDGET WELSH is assistant professor in Southeast Asian studies at John Hopkins University-SAIS, Washington DC. She was at the 54th PAS muktamar in Ipoh.

See also

Election post-mortem: Top 10 factors