Hansard Society event

Anyone want to join me attending this event?

PAS and Hotelling's revenge

Reading this article from the Guardian, I am reminded of what happened to Malaysia in the last general election. Perhaps IDS has learnt the lesson from Malaysian opposition's experience... After the Anwar debacle in 1998, the Alternative Front went all out to hunt Tun Mahathir's head. They created names for him - Mahafiraun, Mahazalim, etc etc. They exposed his long list of corruption. They exposed who' who of Tun Mahathir's cronies. They did everything they could they defame Tun Mahathir. Tun Mahathir then stepped down and handed over the Prime Ministership to Pak Lah. Mahathir stepped down with a bruise. His image was damaged. People do not trust him as much. And when he cried on stage, people laughed at him (apart from Rafidah Aziz who was clearly heard saying "Kenapa ni? Don't do this?") Mahathir's departure created a big headache for the opposition. Now that the hunted head is no more, what should the opposition do? They can no longer continue the hunt and the character assassination as the target no longer exist. What's worse, the subsequent PM is squeaky clean. He was even dubbed as "Mr Clean”!!! The outcome? The opposition lost massively in the 2004 general election. That was the result when political fights were conducted on the basis of personalities rather than issues. When you fight on the basis of personalities (e.g.: Mahathir is corrupt or Blair is no longer trustworthy), you will land yourself into trouble when the issue is seen as no longer relevant. When you hunt for Mahathir's head, you suddenly get Pak Lah in his place. You don’t get a change of party, you only get a change of personality from the same pile of rubbish. The opposition did not gain anything, they lose out. When you hunt for Blair's head, you will only get Brown in No 10. The opposition will not gain anything. But the Malaysian opposition tried to fight on. Once again, they tried to fight Pak Lah on the basis of personality, similar to what they did with Mahathir. They tried to expose Pak Lah's shortcomings. They challenged Pak Lah about the Anwar saga. They declared that Pak Lah is not as clean as imagined. Pak Lah's hands are dirty too because he did not free Anwar. What happened next? Anwar was released. And once again, the opposition lose out. Their call was answered and Anwar is now a free man. On the other hand, Pak Lah's image was boosted when he bravely answered the opposition's call. What next? Will the opposition continue to fight on the basis of personalities? Will they learn from past experience? Now that BN is winning the personality fight, BN is creating a personality war of their own. They created an "image" for Dato Seri Haji Abdul Hadi, PAS President. They created an" image" for PAS Deputy President, Ustaz Hasan Shukri. And PAS has to fight this personality-war like never before. For the last 20-odd years, PAS has been on the offensive in this personality war. All the times, Mahathir was there to be attacked. But this is no more. The rules of the game has changed and PAS has less issues to stay on the offensive. Does PAS have enough experience to now be on the defensive? Is PAS ready to play by UMNO’s rules? If PAS falls for the game, and unwittingly play the personality war by BN's rules, I fear that at the end, it is PAS that will lose out. BN has all the strengths to fight the personality war. They have the money, the media is on their side, and they blatantly abuse the government machinery. PAS cannot win this war for PAS has no weapons. PAS doesn’t even have enough issues to raise. PAS was established on the basis of an ideology. It is not merely a political party, but it is an Islamic movement exploiting the benefits of democracy. Islamic political system is PAS' unique selling point (USP). This is the factor that differentiates PAS. If PAS were to forget this, BN will surely benefit. But, looking at current trends, there is shift towards the middle ground. The middle ground in this case is what many would call "moderate" Islam. I personally do not know what "moderate" Islam is. As far as I am concerned, Islam is already moderate. Islam is the middle-way. How can you make something that already moderate more moderate? Islam, practised in its totality, is the moderate way. But, for the benefit of the argument, let us assume that "moderate" Islam exists. UMNO now wants to be seen Islamic. They created the terms Islam Hadhari. This rubbish is, unfortunately, believed by a vast portion of people in Malaysia. PAS, not wanting to be left out, wants to be seen as moderate too. But while UMNO moves to the middle by becoming more Islamic and leaving their 'assabiyyah origin, PAS comes to the middle by "softening" their stance on the Islamic state issue. Remember the Hotelling model? As both parties move more and more towards the same ground, they can be seen calling for the same agenda. PAS calls for an end of corruption. So does UMNO. PAS calls for the implementation of Islamic syariah. UMNO says they are already doing that and Malaysia is declared as an Islamic country. UMNO wants to get closer to youths. PAS Youth and Muslimat wings declared that they are doing that too. And many more. (If you look at the British scenario, Hotelling’s model becomes more apparent. Can anyone tell what is the actual different between Conservatives and Labour? ) What PAS has to remember is, as they move more and more towards the middle, some supporters will feel left out. Look back at Hotelling's beach. If vendor C (Henry) moves too far towards the middle, some of his customers at position C will feel that the new location is too far for them. They will leave Henry. They will simply search for a new, nearby vendor. Or they may even create a new shop to replace Henry's. This is Hotelling's "revenge". The same has happened to PAS. When PAS tried moving to middle ground and co-operated with Semangat 46, some of PAS' supporters left and started a new party called Al-Islah. For these people, PAS shifted too far and they can no longer follow the drift. Now, when certain quarters in PAS wants to bring PAS even closer to the middle ground - moderate Islam - another group started voicing out their dissatisfaction. This group is labelled as the "older generation" by certain media. Some even went as far as calling them the ulama's in PAS (I do not agree with both terminologies but let us not argue about terminologies here). And, surprise surprise, BN is exploiting this to the max. They highlight the differences everywhere and every time. PAS' image is severely dented. Where does it now stand in terms of the Islamic state? Was it a mistake to release the Islamic state document without careful preparations? Since both are moving towards the same, middle direction, is UMNO now an "Islamic party" too? Why should anyone vote for PAS, now that Mahathir - who was the focus of PAS attacks for the last 20 odd years - is no longer in power? How should PAS respond when the non-Muslims say that a vote for any opposition candidate is a vote for a Taliban-style rule? Add this to the debacle of Kohilal and Kosis - which is being played by BN as an analogy of how PAS would manage Malaysia's economy - PAS has a very difficult war to fight. There is a big dilemma. Going back to Hotelling's model, if PAS were to stay at the same place, they will fail to garner votes from those in the middle. And they will not be able to steal votes from UMNO supporters with Islamic inclinations. Move too far to the middle, and they risk losing hard-core supporters. What's worse, if the shift to the middle is too abrupt, PAS would then enter a new ground in which they have to fight UMNO on the basis of "who is more moderate", not "who is more Islamic". Is PAS ready to play according to this new rule? Is PAS ready to face Hotelling's revenge?

I thought I have 24 hours.

No time to write much. So many things happening in these few weeks. Several AGMs to officiate. Meetings to attend and to prepare for. Academic work. Talks to attend and to give. Papers to write. etc. etc. The 24 hours that I have seem to be insufficient. But once this hectic period is over, I will continue on Hotelling's model.

Hotelling's theory of minimum differentiation

Those who read political science must have heard about Harold Hotelling. He proposed a model called Hotelling’s Model, or what I prefer to see as the theory of minimum differentiation. I found a good explanation of the theory on a website. The explanation goes like this… Suppose that two owners of refreshment stands, George and Henry, are trying to decide where to locate along a stretch of beach. Imagine there are three points along the beach, with point A at the left end, point C at the right end, and point B in between A and C. There are 100 customers located at even intervals along this beach from point A to C, and that a customer will buy only from the closest vendor. Imagine that initially the vendors locate at points A and C. These locations would minimize the average travelling costs of the buyers and would result in each vendor getting one half of the business. If George moved from point A on the left to point B in the middle, he would keep all customers to his left, and get some of Henry's customers. To compete, Henry would also want to move toward point B in the centre, so that he can keep the customers to his right, while not losing the customers who are at the centre to George. Thus, in order to gain the most customers, both vendors would eventually locate together in the middle. This story of the beach was first told a half century ago by Harold Hotelling, and is called Hotelling's model. Though it can give some insights into businesses decisions concerning location and product characteristics, the model has been more useful in explaining certain political phenomena. Instead of two refreshment stands along a beach trying to attract dollars from customers, consider two political parties along the political spectrum from left-wing it right-wing trying to attract votes from voters. Only the party who attracts the most votes will win, and a party must locate or identify itself as being nearer to more voters than its opponent to attract votes. With these rules, there is a strong tendency for each party to move to the middle - where most voters are located.

In short, in order to gain the most votes, the parties try to locate themselves somewhere in the middle-ground, with the hope that they will garner more votes from the opponent. Since both of them locate to the middle, they eventually minimise the differences between themselves.

I will write more on why I find this theory interesting in the near future.