The democracy of a constitutional monarchy

The Conference of Rulers, a unique gathering of monarchs with origins in the Durbar of 1897, convenes for the 216th time this week since its first meeting in this format on 31 August 1948. Throughout its history it has made many important decisions as required by the Constitution, and has acted as a check and balance in the interplay between the branches of government. In addition to their independent roles in their own kingdoms as Heads of State, the Conference enables them to act collectively on matters pertaining to the federation as a whole.

The idea that a monarchy, an institution that derives its legitimacy largely from heredity can be ‘democratic’ can seem counterintuitive. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that monarchies are conducive to democracy and freedom. Seven of the top ten ‘full democracies’ in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy are monarchies; so are six of the top ten countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index; twelve of the top twenty countries in the UNDP’s Human Development Index; and ten of the top twenty countries in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. These statistics are remarkable given that of the nearly 200 countries in the world, less than a quarter are monarchies.

The states that make up Malaysia have had monarchies for centuries: Kedah’s first sultan reigned in 1136. Their Royal Highnesses continue to be the apolitical symbols of their states, Heads of Islam and fountains of honour and mercy. They are all connected with the military and His Majesty the Agong is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. In a statement issued at the last Conference of Rulers, the monarchs showed that they understand their role of safeguarding “Islam, Malay as the national language, and the genuine interests of the other communities in Malaysia.”

As we move into the terrain of a two-party system the need for an apolitical Head of State to provide a symbol of unity becomes greater than ever. Where the democratic process fails whether because of political incompetence, military coups or foreign interference the monarch becomes the last line of defence. This backup has been invoked most famously in Spain in 1981 and Thailand in 1992. In the former, King Juan Carlos (who had earlier relinquished authoritarian powers inherited from General Franco) thwarted an attempted military coup by calling for unambiguous support for the legitimate democratic government in a public broadcast and personally summoning senior military figures to the palace. In the latter, King Bhumibol similarly summoned rival leaders to the palace, leading to the resignation of the coup leader. In both cases political turmoil and violence was averted.

Throughout history there have been monarchs at the forefront of reform. Peter the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent and Elizabeth I all personally oversaw legal, administrative and cultural reforms which enabled their realms to enter golden ages. Closer to home, the Sultans of Malacca are credited for spreading Islam and bringing freer trade to the region. Today there are many monarchs taking the lead in developing their countries. The new king of Bhutan is leading efforts to democratise his country. The Emir of Qatar founded al-Jazeera, the courageous news broadcaster that has been responsible for bringing unprecedented levels of media freedom to the Middle East. And last month, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia appointed a woman as Deputy Minister – a simple act that would nonetheless have angered conservatives in the holy kingdom.

Of course, not all monarchs are benevolent or enlightened, and that is why history also features innumerable regicides, such as those of Charles I of England or Louis XVI of France. Today’s absolute monarchies join communist republics and military dictatorships at the bottom of the lists mentioned earlier. That is why constitutional monarchy evolved as a system, to ensure the institution served to prevent authoritarianism by denying powers to other institutions, to intervene only when necessary and to unite the people. In countries experiencing ethnic division, such as Belgium, the king provides the principle source of unity by being uniquely “Belgian”. We see similar sentiments here in the speeches of our Rulers and the eagerness of people of all backgrounds championing various causes to appeal to the Agong, the Supreme Head of Malaysia.

Recently, our Rulers have in their own way proved to be courageous and loyal to their people in this time of political uncertainty. 8 March provided numerous tests for the institution. In the Menteri Besar issues in Perlis and Terengganu, the Raja of Perlis and the Regency Council of Terengganu appointed the individual who commanded the confidence of the majority of the State Assemblymen and thus the electorate that they represent. This may have contradicted the wishes of the Federal Government and ultimately the UMNO Presidency, which had become accustomed to appointing Menteris Besar, but these actions were entirely upheld by the state constitutions. The Rulers acted as bulwarks against the centralisation of power, and the people appreciated it: thousands upon thousands thronged Kuala Terengganu to welcome their Sultan after the incident. Similarly, in Selangor and Perak, the Sultan had to appoint a Menteri Besar from a coalition of parties that were in opposition prior to 8 March. They had to determine whether a united and formidable state government could be formed.

Respective Rulers have also stepped in during potentially explosive issues created by certain parties. The Sultan of Selangor for example reiterated his position as the Head of Islam in the state and the role of the Islamic Affairs Council during a proposed fatwa on the practice of yoga. This statement alleviated the tension that was created. The statement on the Social Contract by the Conference of Rulers was also released to ease widespread anxiety. By reasserting facts already in the public domain about the Constitution and Social Contract they showed astuteness in reading the mood of their subjects. Earlier this month, the Raja of Perlis reiterated that “the different races must build understanding and respect each other’s rights as part of the social contract”.

The recent events in Perak can be classified in the same category albeit with a more magnified reaction. As a result of defections from three assemblypersons, Barisan Nasional acquired majority control of the State Assembly. The Sultan, a former Lord President, invoked Article 18 of the State Constitution to resolve the situation. This decision was made in light of his role as a defender of the people and in accordance with the law, which provided this discretionary power for circumstances such as these. It is a shame that many quarters have directed their anger at the monarchy and not at the assemblypersons – one even hopped back and forth. Farcically, both sides had similar arguments for the individual when he was not on their side. Wouldn’t the argument still be valid regardless of which side his allegiance was?

Missing from the discussion is the responsibility of the parties to reform their own processes to select reliable candidates. And most analysts have failed to appreciate the consequences of a snap election. The existing animosity between the parties could have resulted in heightened tension and negative campaigning, possibly leading to violence. The costs of running the election and the security required would also have to be borne by the taxpayer in this time of economic crisis. And even after all that, the result could have been similar anyway. Let’s remember that the people elected these representatives a year ago whereas the assembly is supposed to last for five years! Had the politicians been more patient, a vote of no confidence could have been tabled at the next legitimate sitting, but instead they have dragged the Silver State into this mess.

The actions of our Rulers after 8 March have been more evident at a time when it is most needed and at a time when impatience and weak political integrity have led to an uncertain environment. We have come a long way since the Rulers were besmirched by a disgusting media assault in the late 1980s and early 90s. Time and wisdom have enabled the Rulers to regain their nobility and honour, and their actions in the future will ultimately decide how the institution evolves. They must represent themselves above all others with dignity, thus setting an example for others to emulate. This is crucial as their actions will always be scrutinised. Their role is a privilege bestowed upon them from generations of history to uphold law, order, and harmony amongst the people. As Pak Lah moves on, having not regretted his commitment to more democratic space, we can hope that a more independent media, alongside the judiciary, police and other institutions can be protected by the Rulers, playing their role as guardians and ombudsmen for all Malaysians.

--

Syed Haizam Jamalullail is involved in Sustainable Investments at a London-based Fund Management firm. He holds a MA (Honours) degree in Human Sciences from the University of Oxford and a Graduate Diploma in Law. Tunku ‘Abidin Muhriz heads the Project to Advance Democratic Institutions at the Malaysia Think Tank. He obtained his BSc and MSc from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

An edited version of this article was published in the Sunday Star, 22 March 2009