At a point in the not so distant past, I used to hold a favorable view of Keadilan. Lately however, that opinion has slowly gone from supportive to almost ambivalence. The more I learn about the party, the more I find the party confusing. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Keadilan is a party of undecided ideological standing. It is a patchwork of this and that, neither here nor there. Its members are too ideologically diverse and they possibly band together with one purpose: protesting. Yes. Keadilan from my point of view, is a protest party and nothing more.
At the beginning, during the upheaval of the late 1990s, the party was established as a response to the sacking and the imprisonment of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. To many in the party, the black and white were clear cut; the good guys were with Anwar Ibrahim, fighting perceived injustice while those standing behind Mahathir Mohamed were villains. Day in, day out, the party’s fixation on Anwar Ibrahim became so intense that it seemed the party’s main purpose was to free Anwar Ibrahim and nothing else.
Some within the party and some outside sympathizers started to realize the centrality of free-Anwar, anti-Mahathir sentiment within Keadilan. These people criticized the party for that and suggested that Keadilan needed to go beyond a personality. In the early days however, Anwar Ibrahim was so popular among the masses that tactical change was not necessary. The 1999 general election later proved that.
If the 1999 election proved that critics were wrong, 2004 proved that the critics were right after all. By that year, Anwar Ibrahim become so irrelevant that Keadilan initially lost all of its seats. It only regained one seat after a recount. And then, the final blow came. Mahathir Mohamed resigned and soon afterward, the former prime minister was released. With that, just like how a special purpose vehicle is useless after achieving its goal, Keadilan lost its cause and risked irrelevancy.
To be fair, the party is reinventing itself. Through my limited interaction with those in the party, it, or rather its members have found a new cause, Unfortunately, that new cause is similar to that of the Democrats’ during the 2004 election. If the Democrats chanted for anything but Bush, the people in Keadilan are saying anything but BN. Just like how the Democratic Party garnered dissatisfied voters against the Republicans, Keadilan is garnering dissatisfied voters against BN. The Democratic Party was a protest party then; Keadilan is currently a protest party.
What else could explain the fact that there are so many diverse fractions within Keadilan working together in spite of incredible difference?
Surely the liberals and the lefties would argue against each other to kingdom’s come. Add the Islamists into the equation, boy, it is a recipe for Krakatoa. The ideological difference between each fraction is too great to go unnoticed or ignored. I would imagine that if BN is wiped out of the equation, those fractions within Keadilan would turn onto itself.
So, what holds Keadilan together? What attracts there fractions so greatly that the difference could be set aside?
I could think of two factors. One factor has been mentioned and it is the shared disatisfication against BN. Another is the initial raison d’être of Keadilan, Anwar Ibrahim; personality cult.
A friend told me that Anwar Ibrahim is one of the few persons that could talk to both the liberals and the Islamists comfortably. The question is why is that possible? Has he managed to connect the liberals (along possibly with the socialists) with the Islamists? From the look of it, surely he has but what exactly is that connection?
Is it pragmatism?
In the face of vast ideological difference between groups, I tend to favor pragmatism as an explanation. A deeper inquiry would venture, what is the cause of that pragmatism?
I could think of only one way to rationalize this: the cause is the various fractions’ shared discontent against BN. In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Anwar Ibrahim seems to realize this; he builds his base on top of that discontent, catering everybody across the board.
Further, it seems to me that like John Kerry, Anwar Ibrahim is trying to please everybody. Because of the way he derives his political clout, he has to please every fraction within Keadilan. Everybody, meaning liberals, socialists, Islamists, the populists. Exactly because of this, he cannot afford to offend anybody. Exactly because of this, he needs to stay above the ideological jostling between the fractions of Keadilan. For if he starts to join the fray, he would lose support from some fractions. Exactly because of this, since he takes no real ideological stance, he is able to talk to both liberals and Islamists, etc. In the end, a populist.
Hence, the answer to why I think Keadilan is a mere protest party.
If Keadilan plans to be more than a mere protest party, it must find its ideological home.