Author : MUHAMMAD SHAHRIZUL
In democratic systems, governance failures are often attributed solely to those in power. While governments must always be held accountable for their performance, this framing overlooks a crucial institutional reality: no government can govern well without a strong, competent, and functional opposition. Effective democracy is not sustained by elections alone, but by continuous scrutiny, debate, and institutional pressure.
At its core, the opposition is not simply a political rival. It is the primary mechanism through which checks and balances operate between elections. When this mechanism weakens, accountability erodes even if formal democratic structures remain intact.
Malaysia’s recent parliamentary experience illustrates this challenge clearly.
The Erosion of Substantive Parliamentary Scrutiny
In recent parliamentary sessions, particularly between 2023 and 2024, the quality of opposition discourse has declined. A significant portion of opposition interventions has relied on emotive narratives tied to identity, sentiment, and symbolism, while sustained engagement with policy design, implementation capacity, fiscal discipline, and programme outcomes has been limited.
This shift matters. Parliamentary democracy depends on informed challenge: questioning budgetary assumptions, testing implementation readiness, identifying unintended consequences, and demanding clarity on delivery mechanisms. When opposition debate lacks this depth, institutional pressure on the executive weakens, regardless of how vocal or visible the opposition may appear.
The result is not merely political noise, but a hollowing out of Parliament’s role as a serious accountability forum.
Lessons from Malaysia’s Recent Political History
Malaysia’s own experience demonstrates that this outcome is not inevitable. There have been periods in which the opposition functioned effectively and commanded public confidence precisely because it focused on substance rather than spectacle.
Prior to 2018, Pakatan Harapan (PH) as the opposition demonstrated a strong “accountability effect.” Its parliamentary and public advocacy consistently focused on corruption, governance failures, cost-of-living pressures, institutional abuse, and fiscal risks. Arguments were often supported by audit findings, documented evidence, and sustained policy critique. This approach elevated parliamentary debate and helped cultivate public understanding of governance issues beyond partisan loyalty.
Similarly, UMNO’s period as an opposition party following the 2018 general election provides another instructive example. Drawing on decades of governing experience, UMNO’s opposition strategy focused on implementation gaps, fiscal sustainability, public debt, taxation impacts, and administrative capacity. Budget debates became meaningful arenas for testing government competence rather than symbolic confrontations. This approach resonated with segments of the public because it engaged directly with outcomes that affected daily life.
These two experiences despite coming from different political traditions shared a common strength: opposition pressure was directed at the most vulnerable points of governance which is policy coherence, delivery capacity, and fiscal responsibility.
The Limits of Individual Parliamentary Effort
It must be acknowledged that even in the current Parliament, there remain individual opposition members who attempt to engage constructively through fact-based scrutiny and disciplined parliamentary participation. Such efforts demonstrate that parliamentary standards have not disappeared entirely.
However, individual competence cannot substitute for institutional strength. Effective checks and balances require a coordinated opposition bloc that can sustain pressure across committees, budget cycles, and policy domains. Without numbers, organisational coherence, and shared policy capacity, even the most diligent parliamentarian operates in isolation.
Democratic accountability cannot rely on isolated voices. It requires structure.
Structural Imbalance in the Current Political Configuration
This leads to a broader institutional concern. The current configuration in which UMNO and Pakatan Harapan govern together is not optimal for democratic health. While such arrangements may provide short-term political stability, they blur the critical distinction between those who exercise power and those who are tasked with scrutinising it.
In a healthy democracy, one bloc governs while another meaningfully opposes. Either bloc may legitimately lead government provided the other occupies the role of structured opposition in accordance with the electoral mandate. When the majority of political power is consolidated within a broad governing coalition, and the remaining opposition lacks coherence or capacity, parliamentary oversight weakens by default.
Consensus politics cannot replace accountability. Stability cannot substitute for scrutiny.
Why This Matters Beyond Malaysia
This issue extends beyond any single country. Many democracies face similar challenges where fragmented oppositions, identity-based politics, or oversized coalitions reduce effective oversight. The lesson is clear: democracy does not fail only through authoritarian takeover, it can also decay through institutional atrophy.
Without sustained opposition pressure, governments regardless of ideology face fewer incentives to refine policy, correct implementation failures, or improve transparency. Over time, this erodes public trust, weakens institutions, and diminishes democratic resilience.
Conclusion: Opposition as an Institutional Necessity
Malaysia does not lack opposition representation numerically. What it lacks is a strong, disciplined, policy-oriented opposition capable of sustained institutional scrutiny. Until this gap is addressed, governance will continue to operate under reduced accountability pressure, even in the presence of competitive elections.
Democracy requires more than the ability to win power. It requires the willingness and capacity to challenge power responsibly.
A functional opposition is not a political luxury, it is a democratic necessity.