By Vincent D’Silva

JOHOR BAHRU: Elections may change governments, electoral maps may shift and political fortunes may rise and fall, but Malaysia’s greater battle lies beyond the ballot box — in building institutions strong enough to withstand the ambitions, weaknesses and excesses of those who come to power.

That was the central message delivered by former Bersih chairman Thomas Fann when he addressed members of the Rotary Club of Johor Bahru (RCJB) at its weekly meeting at Amari Johor Bahru, examining the implications of the recent Johor and Negeri Sembilan state elections on the Madani Government and the road towards the 16th General Election (GE16).

In his talk, themed “Implications of Johor and N9 State Elections on Madani Government and GE16”, Fann described an increasingly fluid political landscape where voter loyalties are shifting and governments can no longer take traditional support for granted.

He said Barisan Nasional’s strong showing could be attributed to several factors, including a substantial return of Malay support and dissatisfaction among sections of the Chinese electorate towards Pakatan Harapan, particularly over the pace of reforms. This, he said, contributed to lower turnout and strategic abstention.

Indian voters, too, had shown signs of disillusionment, while bread-and-butter concerns — including the cost of living, employment, infrastructure and economic opportunities — continued to weigh heavily on Malaysians.

With PH the leading partner in the Madani Government, Fann noted that much of the public frustration over such issues inevitably landed at its doorstep.

Leadership also mattered, particularly in Johor, where the popularity of Menteri Besar Datuk Onn Hafiz Ghazi and the absence of an equally compelling alternative strengthened BN’s position.

Fann also pointed to weaknesses in PH’s campaign, including insufficiently clear messaging and coordination, against a political backdrop no longer dominated by a scandal on the scale of 1MDB.

The consequences, he suggested, could extend beyond Johor and Negeri Sembilan.

With elections in Melaka and Sarawak on the political horizon, questions would arise over whether the results could increase pressure on the federal coalition, encourage an earlier GE16, strengthen an emerging “blue wave”, reshape the balance of power within the unity government or even revive prospects of an Umno prime minister.

Yet amid those uncertainties, Fann cautioned Malaysians against placing their faith entirely in personalities, parties or another change of government.

“It’s not enough to change a government, we have to change the system,” he said.

For Fann, Malaysia’s experience since the historic 2018 general election has shown that the ballot box has become more powerful. Governments at federal and state levels can now change, while voters increasingly understand that political leaders can be removed when they fail to meet public expectations.

Malaysia, he said, has also made progress in areas such as judicial independence, a freer media environment, greater accountability over grand corruption and a more empowered Parliament through parliamentary select committees.

The country has evolved from decades of dominance by one coalition into an increasingly genuine multi-party democracy in which no political force can assume power belongs to it indefinitely.

But those gains, Fann warned, remain fragile.

Judicial independence has yet to be fully institutionalised, the media is not consistently independent, political patronage remains entrenched and Parliament requires deeper reforms before it can serve fully as an effective check on the executive.

“Whoever becomes PM or whichever coalition forms government, we must stay focused on pushing for institutional reform,” he said.

Among the reforms Fann advocated were stronger rules governing political coalitions, greater devolution of power to states and local councils, the eventual restoration of local government elections, electoral and constituency reforms, political financing legislation and further strengthening of Parliament.

He also called for transparent processes governing judicial and institutional appointments, stronger safeguards for independence and greater civic participation.

Such reforms, he argued, were not abstract democratic ideals disconnected from families struggling with household bills, jobs or their children’s future. Strong institutions create the governance environment in which elected governments can deliver lasting economic benefits.

Drawing comparisons across Asia, Fann cited South Korea and Taiwan as countries that built capable institutions and subsequently broke decisively into the ranks of high-income economies.

Malaysia, despite enjoying an early economic lead, had comparatively plateaued, while countries weakened by political instability, poor institutions or democratic backsliding struggled to achieve similar breakthroughs.

“Growth is not about democracy versus authoritarianism — it is about whether a country builds strong, accountable institutions over time,” he said.

“Democracy alone is not the variable — institutional quality is.”

As Malaysia journeys towards GE16, voters will once again be courted by manifestos, promises, personalities and competing visions of the future. But Fann urged Malaysians to look beyond the excitement of election season and recognise that democracy cannot survive on voting day alone.

His final appeal was directed not merely at politicians but at citizens themselves — to speak, write, engage, support organisations pursuing institutional reform and resist the seduction of populism.

Above all, he urged Malaysians not to surrender to cynicism.

“Don’t give up on democracy and Malaysia!”

It was a fitting conclusion to an evening devoted to politics but ultimately concerned with something larger: the country Malaysians choose to leave behind.

Governments will come and go, leaders will have their hour and political tides will continue to turn. But if the institutions beneath them remain strong, accountable and just, Malaysia’s future need not depend on the fortunes of any one leader or party — but on a democracy sustained by institutions and citizens who still believe their country is worth fighting for.