A two-party political system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all levels of elections for government. Under a two-party system, the dominant party who holds a majority in the legislature will form the government while the minority will form the opposition party.
Recently there has been a growing pressure to push for two party system in Malaysia. Some proponents have gone to the extent of proposing the abolishment of race-based party to encourage the growth of two party system. They condemn race-based party as the culprit that prevents two party systems from flourishing, and said that the race-based parties are irrelevant in modern world.
Is two party system the only choice that we have? To answer this, we have to honestly answer the following questions:
(1) Is two party system the only solution?
There are many countries in the world that practices
multiple party system, including developed nations, e.g. France, Germany, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Ireland, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico and Brazil. There are also countries that practices
single/dominant party system such as People's Republic of China and Singapore.
Two-party system is not the only working choice as shown in the examples above.
(2) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of two party system that we are unaware of?
The advantages of two-party systems are:
i) Two-party systems promote centrism and encourages political parties to find common positions which appeal to
wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth.
ii) two-party systems are
simpler to govern, with less factiousness and harmony, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to
hung parliaments.
The disadvantages are:
i) Two-party systems
fail to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot (
The Tyranny of the Two–party system, Lisa Jane Disch 2002).
ii) The winner-take-all mechanism
discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views ("
The Electoral College Explained" in
Time Magazine, Kristina Dell, Nov 2001).
iii) The American two-party system is
not as representative as the parliamentary system as the latter is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties. It is also interesting to note that majority of democracies around the world have chosen the British multi-party model (
"Exceptional Democracy" in
Huffington Post, Chris Weigant, April 7, 2010).
(3) Can two party system be implemented in our local political landscape?
To address this question, we must look at a) historical foundation and b) current development:
a) Historical foundation
Historically our parliamentary system is based on the
British multi-party model. Despite the difference, the
"winner-takes-all" system in our country is very similar to the United States and is seen as a catalyst to two-party system. Consequently, as in all "winner-takes-all" system, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance or fusion to challenge a large dominant party and gain political clout in the legislature.
b) Current development
In the context of Malaysia, a fusion is nearly impossible judging from the fact that both BN and PR components are formed from the various political parties with different background, ideologies, objectives and "religion" (probably the only odd one in this world). It is very difficult to find an absolute consensus and hence the alliance is formed on a
weakly agreed terms. Not surprisingly many parties and people broke off from the alliance once a deadlock in the grey area was met. To facilitate fusion, the parties must go through many rounds of evolution and assimilation, including compromise on their core beliefs in order to reach a formidable consensus. It is not likely going to happen in the near future unless everyone is willing to compromise! The current two coalition systems between BN and PR has seen many alliance and parting from its members. Despite the problems, it is probably the best form of alliance system as they are formed with a breath of representations from all walks of life.
(4) What does it take to have two-party system?
Firstly, it is in dire need of the spirit of
"non-partisan" and
"bi-partisan" which is not aligned to any party. A "non-partisan" spirit is best option for healthy political development. Elected representatives are free to support any motion and legislation that they think best serves the interest of their community. A bi-partisan spirit is where consensus and compromise are made in order to accommodate the demands of both parties, again in the interest of the people. There is however a tendency to put the party's interest on top of the interest of the people and hence care must be taken to avoid this from happening.
Our political system in Malaysia has always been in a
"partisan" or polarized/bias style where the opposition will always object to the ruling party, and the ruling party will always object to the proposal of the opposition. This is unhealthy as humans can sometimes err in their decisions. Because of the polarized view, the erred party is not willing to compromise and the error persists. Instead of being partisan all the time, I would sincerely hoped to see a non-partisan and bi-partisan approach in local political scenario. We all should support the right thing instead of merely echoing the party's agenda. The recent tabling of President Obama's budget also saw the spirit of
"bi-partisan" being put into effect when a consensus is reached between the Democrats and Republican. If the Americans can do it, why can't we?
Contrary to popular belief that race-based politics are hindrances to the development of two party system, it is the
"object for the sake of objecting" mentality that must stop in order to encourage two party system to flourish. A two party system allows the opposition party to have strong check and balance power but at the same time require them to exercise this power with care.
In United States, race-based politics has been a staple of Democrats and their liberal media cohorts under president Obama. But why there seems to be no objection in an advanced state with the most liberal political landscape when the race card is played? The answer is simple. It is well incorporated into their agenda with due respect to every race in terms of equality and fairness. Ultimately you cannot stop people from having the first black president as that will constitute a bias or racial discrimination. In essence, every race in this world have their right to be treated fairly and equally and
as long as the races did not achieve equal status, race-based politics will still be relevant.
In Malaysia, the recent issue of PPSMI is a good example of how political parties with
"object for the sake of objecting" approach the issue. They objected to the introduction of PPSMI but when PPSMI is abolished, they now object to the abolishment. Aren't political parties supposed to have a stand? How can the benefits of the people be represented when the parties suddenly switch camp? This is a classic example of "partisan", non-constructive style that we all should avoid at all costs.
Conclusion
Judging from the current scenario in Malaysia, I would say we are still far away from reaching two-party system. In fact, there is no actual need for two-party system as the current democracy model is working fine in Malaysia. Why would we want to reinvent the wheels when we already have it?
By Steve Teoh Chee Hooi
