IT is as if the electorate has matured. It is like the people now understand democracy is not just freedom of choice, but that it is informed choice that makes for the desired outcome.
Identity politics appears to have lost its shine. It is like politicians must not ignore the interest of the public, and believe that the charisma and personality of a person can obliterate the rationale of self-interest — the primary factor in determining a voter's choice.
It cannot be ignored. The recent Melaka election delivered this message. The 2018 general election was indicative of this evolution. Voters acted for alternatives and took a chance, leaving a Parliament unlike another.
No two-thirds majority for any party. Rather, it was the nearest thing to a hung Parliament. But, the resultant instability due to loss of party discipline was more than what the people could stomach. The pandemic made the political uncertainties too intolerable.
And so Melaka made a choice well tested over the many decades of independence: a two-thirds majority to Barisan Nasional (BN). Yes, it is the coalition with the best machinery, tried and tested.
But its loss in 2018 exposed vulnerabilities. BN is not invincible.
The last Melaka government collapsed at the hands of politicians in the assembly, supporters of the government which did not include BN. And, you may wonder why was there not a similar collapse in Parliament when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad stepped down as prime minister?
Although there were many who tried to unseat him, they failed. He withdrew and left the king to appoint a replacement, the man who had the support of the majority of members of parliament.
But the manoeuvring and squabbling in the ruling coalition got in the way of good governance.
The Melaka debacle is too similar to the political shenanigans in Putrajaya. After three prime ministers over three years, the weakened governance is obvious.
That the government is still standing is more a reflection of a lack of will by parliamentarians to pull a Melaka move and bring the government down.
However, what of the people? Are they happy with the government? Thus far, there is little, if any, indication that they mind that after one general election there have been three governments.
That such simple democratic principles such as a majority party leading has become less than obvious, and appears to make
no difference. Ministers voted in as BN representatives are now Perikatan Nasional, a coalition that did not face the electorate, until Melaka.
Democracy then, if left to the politicians, remains a simple act of the voters' choice at the ballot box. But Melaka has shown that the act is no longer as simple as presumed. The choice is now pregnant with intent, in this case a backlash against a moronic political game at the expense of stability, which has cost the taxpayers RM5 million.
Could Melaka have set a trend? And, if it has, would Malaysians return a BN government with a two-thirds majority to Putrajaya? The shift in 2018 is about the exuberance of a leadership that had lost all sense of propriety.
And, there is a sense that those taken to task are neither sorry nor shamefaced. Under these circumstances, would voters make it their intention to ensure the unseating of these individuals if they insist on remaining on offer to the public?
Is the political maturity of the Malaysian electorate as highly developed to define the nature of the representatives sitting in Parliament and state assemblies?
Some political commentators have said that Pakatan Harapan's poor showing in Melaka can be attributed to their embrace of those who caused the collapse of the state government, two of whom were defeated, rejected by the people.
If this evaluation is correct, then it is possible to see a legislative assembly in character, at least, fashioned by the people.
If politicians will not exhibit wisdom then the people will impose their wisdom on the politicians.
Melaka could be a watershed in Malaysian political history, birthing a democracy of people's representatives where the people's interests are at the forefront of politics as opposed to the current disregard of public wellbeing.
Lies, half truths and double-speak colour political speech adroitly and shamelessly.
But politics is the means to organising society for the best societal wellbeing to realise the Social Contract, the basis upon which the community is built to fulfil the aspirations of individuals who honour social security.
The author is a former NST leader writer