Compass Elections: November 2022 Roundup
Map of the November 19th parliamentary election in Malaysia (Wikimedia Commons). The centrist Pakatan Harapan (PH, dark red) won the most seats, but not enough to form a majority.
Hung Parliament leads to tense negotiations in southeast asian nation
Malaysia, general (Parliamentary) – Nov 19
By Anthony Duan
Malaysia’s 19 November general elections have recently concluded, and with the 222 members of its 15th Parliament selected, a hung Parliament has appeared in a new development for the Southeast Asian nation of 30 million, with two leaders both claiming victory as three major alliances – and various regional parties—compete for domination.
Incumbent Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob — despite his leadership of the long-ruling right-wing Barisan Nasional coalition and (more specifically) its largest member party, the once-dominant United Malays National Organization (UMNO)—is not among the main contenders. His bloc has suffered in the polls ever since the 1MDB corruption scandal of 2015 revealed that billions in taxpayers’ dollars had been embezzled overseas under the leadership of imprisoned former UMNO Prime Minister Najib Razak.
Instead, ex-Barisan and former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is one of the big players with his centrist and multiethnic Pakatan Harapan, the traditional second alliance in Malaysian politics, winning 82 seats or just under 40%. The other is former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, whose right-of-center Perikatan Nasional has clinched a close second with 73 seats—its biggest factions being Malay conservatives and pro-Sharia Islamists, the latter of whom now form Malaysia’s largest single party. Barisan has only won 30, a tremendous defeat for the incumbent Prime Minister’s party, which returned to power following a tumultuous and shorter-than-normal Parliament that saw three Prime Ministers—including Muhyiddin—in the span of four years.
Another of those short-lived Prime Ministers was 97-year-old Mahathir Muhammad, who became Pakatan’s first Prime Minister after winning the 2018 elections despite having served as Barisan’s authoritarian (if relatively successful) Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003. More controversially, it was he who had decades ago sacked Anwar (who was later arrested) on controversial charges of sodomy before later joining forces with the Pakatan leader before defecting from the alliance—and other blocs—to create his own party, Pejuang.
That party won no seats, with the elderly statesman finishing fourth of five candidates in his own seat of Langkawi island – a definite end to a seemingly-eternal tenure. Anwar must certainly be pleased, having beaten his oft-betraying boss to a hard-fought showdown.
These elections, with a voting age lowered to 18 (from 21) and with voters having been automatically registered, have recorded a record turnout of almost 15 million votes, though turnout of voters as a percent is down around 10%—70% from 82%—since the previous elections in 2018. A large majority of the country’s overall voters are ethnic Malays, hence the country’s name, and they broke in large margins for Perikatan. Minority voters, primarily Chinese and Indian, have been seen as more on Pakatan’s side, which has led more conservative and rural Malays to vote for any other alliance to avoid the loss of their “rights.” What are these rights? The New Economic Policy (NEP).
After deadly riots in 1969, the Malaysian government introduced a system of affirmative action for Malays that, among other privileges, guaranteed easier access to university admissions and scholarships while requiring that corporate equities controlled by Malays and other bumiputera (indigenous) be sold only to other natives.
Despite these efforts, natives remain poorer than the minorities, owning less than 20% of corporate equities and forming three-quarters of the nation’s poorest while being two-thirds of its overall population. In fact, since wealthier Malays have still taken advantage of these programs (even as 60% of the country’s 1% remain Chinese,) with poorer minorities unable to, a situation has been created which Malay student Firdaus Jesfrydi describes as “rigged to favor rich bumi[putera]s” and which contender Anwar wishes to reform into a more “needs-based” system.
It perhaps would have made more sense if “opportunities [had been] allocated based on merit,” according to political scientist Wong Chin Huat, but “such an equal-opportunity scheme [could not] incentivize Malays to support UMNO.” The party not only introduced the NEP back in the 1970s, but has expanded it since then, including under Mahathir and the incumbent Ismail.
Moreover, many of their Malay voters are sympathetic to the ideas of Ketuanan Melayu—Malay sovereignty on the Malay land, a principle written into the 153rd Article of the Malaysian Constitution, and which has been blamed for painting the country’s minorities as perpetual foreigners. For his part, and not without controversy, Mahathir has criticized Malays’ response to the policy, remarking that many “Malays find it easier to just get the contracts [for business]” without taking on an entrepreneurial spirit themselves.
In any event, the Malay-centric Perikatan and Barisan hold a plurality of seats. With the support of regionalist parties in Malaysia’s Bornean states of Sabah and Sarawak, they would hold a parliamentary majority and the ability to appoint the Prime Minister. Time is short, as Malaysia’s King Abdullah demanded that the parties nominate Prime Ministers by the end of the election weekend, a deadline that was unsurprisingly not reached.
As a constitutional monarchy, most major authority in Malaysia rests with the lower house of Parliament, whose 222 members are, according to Reuters, selected by first-past-the-post, where every district elects a single member and the alliance with a majority of seats (112 of 222) forms the next government. Should no alliance hold a majority, coalition negotiations will need to take place, but this is extremely uncommon and has never before happened after an election.
The Prime Minister is formally appointed by the King, and in homage to Malaysia’s federal status, where nine of 13 states are hereditary constitutional monarchies unto themselves, the Kingship is in fact a rotating office between the monarchs of those nine states that changes hands every five years. Two of those 13 states are Sabah and Sarawak, and the influence of their regionalist parties—which demand greater development and autonomy from Kuala Lumpur’s peninsula (such as the construction of highways and the designation of ‘premiers’ rather than ‘chief ministers’ as elected regional leaders)—could easily swing the balance of power one way or another.
Following the initial failure of party negotiations, King Abdullah called the other eight state sultans to discuss the new government’s formation, after which Anwar was appointed as the head of a government that pledged to focus on corruption and the economy while defending the country’s Malay and Islamic nature. The new coalition is between the Pakatan, Barisan, and Bornean parties, guaranteeing that a multiethnic bloc will be able to bring some stability to the weary country…at least for a few years. Given corruption scandals, divisions may yet appear.
Young Republic, Young Leaders – Old Stalwarts Dominate, but New Faces Provide Hope
NEpal, general (Parliamentary) – nov 20
By Brendan Carroll
The results of Nepal’s parliamentary and provincial elections continue to trickle in slowly, day by day. Although there are parliament seats yet to be called, the trends already recorded tell an important story, of a party system muddled in the same confusion and insincerity as countless elections past. They tell of a broken prime minister position, riddled with candidates lacking a clear policy plan or widespread public support. Perhaps most of all, they tell of a dejected public, avoiding the ballot box even in what The Diplomat has called the most pivotal election in recent years.
This election season, all 275 seats of Nepal’s national House of Representatives (the lower house of parliament) were up for grabs. As Al Jazeera explains, these seats are decided in a unique mixed-model, with 165 members (60%) directly elected from single-member constituencies and the remaining 110 (40%) chosen by parties proportionally based on the national vote share. In addition, the people voted on 550 open seats in seven provincial assemblies.
The Kathmandu Post reports that of the 165 directly-elected seats, 57 have been awarded to the Nepali Congress party, 44 to the Nepal Communist Party - United Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), and 17 to the CPN - Maoist (yes, Maoist.) The CPN-UML attempted to challenge the Nepali Congress, Nepal’s current ruling party, and their opposition has been a partial success, as the Nepali Congress will likely be unable to claim a majority in the House of Representatives.
However, the Congress formed a coalition with other parties prior to the election, with the CPN Maoist as their largest constituent ally. As explained by WIONews, the Congress has aligned with five adjacent, smaller parties; combined, these parties give the Nepali Congress de facto control of the House.
As a result, Sher Bahadur Deuba will retain his role as Prime Minister, according to The Indian Express. As a result of his alliance with minor parties, he was able to bring some level of stability following the removal of UML leader KP Sharma Oli from office after a vote of confidence after Oli’s attempt to dissolve Parliament twice this year.
Yet, the public is far from overjoyed. While Deuba’s victory should be encouraging to a nation now torn with economic and political strife, there is no reason to believe things will dramatically change. As reported by Jagranjosh, Deuba will rise to the Prime Minister seat to lead a sixth non-consecutive term, should things go accordingly. In all his time, both under the first and second constitutional governments, little in Nepal has changed for the better – the constant changes in the premiership being a clear indication.
Since the pandemic, Nepal’s economy has floundered. Largely reliant on tourism, the difficulty to recover from travel shutdowns plagues the country. What’s perhaps worse, though, is the constant political squabbling, preventing any meaningful policy from being implemented.
Nepal’s government system was built for an evolving world. As explained by IFES, with seats reserved at all levels for women and disabled people, and a highly organized federalist model, the country’s political system seemed poised for equity and success. However, the issues at hand prove otherwise. Economic issues are yet to be resolved, after.
It’s no wonder, then, that the public feels uninterested in voting. As explained by the Daily Pioneer, Nepal saw the lowest voter turnouts since the 2015 constitutional change, with only about 61% of the 18 million voters casting a ballot. Social media campaigns were launched in the days leading up to the elections, too. Disaffected Nepalis took to Twitter to voice their discontent, posting with “#nonotagain.” Two people were even killed in protests before election day.
Yet it’s important to recognize the glimmer of hope for Nepalis – the abundance of young politicians taking the reigns. While smaller parties did not win outright on the regional level, their loose coalition with the Nepali Congress gives them a collective voice. Younger politicians took over the seats of senior party leaders, too, with six incumbent ministers losing their seats as reported by Foreign Policy. A new party of youthful politicians, the National Independent Party, was even the fourth in total votes received (behind the Congress, UML, and Maoists).
In order to be the answer to the people’s pleas, they need to assert power where possible. While it is assumed coalition parties will support Deuba’s claim to power, they are in no way officially bound to him. To ensure the needs of their voters are met, young politicians can offer their support conditionally, only allowing Deuba his position if he meets certain needs. Be it revitalizing the tourism sector or bolstering the self-sufficient hydropower infrastructure in the country, the goals of the people may finally be met with career politicians held accountable.
While this election may finish with underwhelming results, the possibility of a brighter future is not too far gone. Nepal is a young republic, only established in 2008 after the abolition of a two-century-old monarchy. If new politicians act on their power wisely, the people may regain their passion for voting. Even small progress now could be enough to set the nascent government on the path to a prosperous future.
incumbent “Wins” Presidency in central asia
Kazakhstan, presidential – Nov 20
By Gabrielle Cunningham
Kassym-Jomart Tokayev won re-election to the Kazakhstan presidency with 81.31% of the vote on November 20. Tokayev leads the Amanat party, the largest party in the country. Announced in late October, this election was a snap election, having originally been set to take place in December 2024. However, Tokayev moved the date up, citing the need for constitutional reform that reformed term limits to one, seven-year term. He had five formal challengers, but the option that received the second most votes was the recently instituted “Against All” option with 5.8%.
This election, though largely uncontested by the population, bore the hallmarks of Kazakhstan’s unfree and unfair elections since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. First, Tokayev’s margin of victory is unheard of in competitive elections. Often, competitors are able to campaign openly and expose their opponents’ flaws. Here, competitors avoided criticizing Tokayev and even complimented him in some instances. A lack of analytical reporting and critical news coverage compounded this effect. Even if voters could have been swayed to vote for other candidates, they were not provided with negative information about Tokayev.
Second, both before and on election day, independent monitoring organizations reported problems. One office experienced extended power outages while all businesses around them had power, while another’s hotel venue flooded the night before a scheduled election monitor training, despite no reported floods existing in the area at the time. On election day, over a dozen monitors reported police removing them from polling areas.
Third, on election day, police arrested six members of Oyan Qazaqstan, a civil rights movement that started during Tokayev’s first presidential race. Police claim the protestors were only arrested because they did not register their activities with authorities early enough, but Kazakh authorities do have a history of arresting protestors without cause.
Before Tokayev, Nursultan Nazarbayev served as president from 1991 to 2019. Nazarbayev ruled as an authoritarian, questionably winning reelection four times. Keeping with his Soviet roots, Nazarbayev kept Kazakhstan’s diplomatic ties to Russia strong and fostered economic ties with China as well. As a hand-picked successor, Tokayev continues much of Kazakhstan’s only other president’s policy objectives, remaining in close contact with Beijing and Moscow. However, Tokayev’s relationship with Nazarbayev soured after deadly protests in January 2022, partially caused by Nazarbayev’s enduring control in the country.
Furthermore, since the invasion of Ukraine, Tokayev has signaled a desire for a balanced relationship between Russia and the West. At a conference in June, Tokayev stated that Kazakhstan did not recognize Russian-controlled territories in Ukraine, and recently Kazakhstan has also established new trade agreements with the European Union. At the same time, Tokayev’s first post-election trip abroad was to Russia on November 28, where he met with Vladimir Putin and discussed furthering economic ties.
Post-election, Tokayev also announced a swathe of policy objectives such as eliminating monopolies, fighting corruption, protecting human rights, and growing the private sector. How or when these objectives will come to fruition is unclear, but international human rights organizations are unenthused about Kazakhstan’s potential for change over the next seven year presidency.
A win for women, a defeat for democracy
bahrain, general (parliamentary) – NOV 12
By Ryan Finster
Bahrain, the Shiite-majority but Sunni-ruled island nation in the Persian Gulf, held general elections for its lower house on November 12. All 40 seats of the Council of Representatives were contested, but the international community and opposition members have decried the elections as a sham, a symptom of the country’s decade-long shift towards authoritarianism and political oppression.
Despite the controversy, this year’s elections signal a positive trend for women’s rights, as the number of female candidates nearly doubled to 94 and women won eight out of 40 seats. Moreover, the Cabinet also saw its number of women increase from one to five. Unfortunately, Bahrain appears to be in a stage of one step forward, three steps back.
Polls suggested that, like much of the world’s voters, fiscal policy and employment were the foremost issues on the ballot. But according to groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, those are not the most pressing problems the country faces, nor are those at the polls representative of the entire Bahraini population.
Following widespread protests in 2011 during the Arab Spring, the ruling Al Khalifa family heightened their efforts to crack down on political dissidents, which culminated with the forceful dissolution of al-Wifaq and Wa’d, the two largest opposition parties, by Bahrain’s High Civil Court in 2016 and 2017. Then, prior to the 2018 general election, the government passed a series of political isolation laws that block former members of any opposition party from running for office and financially impede politicians and activists who have ever been arrested. Since the Arab Spring, many political dissidents have been jailed for criticizing the government, boycotting of the 2018 elections, belonging (retroactively) to banned political organizations, and “disrupt[ing] constitutional life.”
In a public statement, Amnesty International declared, “Bahrain has closed the one independent news source in the country, banned all unlicensed public gatherings, all protests in the capital, Manama, any expression it considers ‘false statements’ that could affect the election, and any election activities that ‘incite division.’”
According to Human Rights Watch, these civil and political isolation laws mean that 6,000 to 11,000 Bahrainis were ineligible from running for office or holding certain positions on civil boards. An analysis by the London-based Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) suggested that the number of people who are ineligible to vote is even higher. In the 2022 elections, there were 20,000 fewer eligible voters than in the 2018 elections, despite an increase in the population who are of voting age. BIRD argues that over 100,000 citizens were barred from the civic process; therefore, while Bahrain’s authorities have praised their 73% turnout rate as a sign of a healthy and active democracy, the real rate is closer to 58%.
After all 255,000 votes were counted, only six of the 40 seats were officially called. Bahrain’s electoral system requires run-offs until a candidate receives 50% of the vote, so a second round of voting was held on November 19. Once all of the races were finalized, the results showed that just seven incumbents were reelected. Yet, defenders of Bahrain’s government point to this turnover as a sign of a healthy system. Indeed, even some former members of societies aligned with al-Wifaq were elected to the Council of Representatives, but their candidacy was at odds with the positions of many of their Shiite allies, who, like in 2018, called for boycotts of the election in protest of the abysmal political climate.
The outrage at Bahrain’s crackdown on human rights reared its head on election day, when the Interior Ministry announced that hackers were preying on multiple websites “to hinder the elections and circulate negative messages.” While the ministry did not release the names of the specific websites targeted, the sites for Bahrain’s parliament, elections, and state-run news agency could not be reached. The government claimed the hackers were “state-backed,” but it did not specify which state they believed were responsible. A social media account called “The Flood” later claimed responsibility for the breaches, citing Bahrain’s despotic government and calls for a boycott of the elections.
Historically, Bahrain has accused Iran, their neighbor across the Gulf, of interfering in their political affairs, including in the 2018 election, when the interior ministry alleged that Iran was the source of 40,000 text messages encouraging Bahraini citizens not to vote.
While it is unclear whether Iranian interference occurred in last month’s election, one thing is evident: Bahrain is at a crossroads in its foreign and domestic policy, and the next four years will determine whether voters will be living in a democracy or autocracy in 2026.
