A silent election

Photo for illustration purposes only.

Try to imagine this scenario. Suddenly, a rule is introduced prohibiting any form of campaigning in elections, be it general elections, state elections or by-elections.

The rule states that anyone campaigning, whether for themselves or any party, could be imprisoned for up to several years or fined hundreds of thousands of ringgit, or both. Additionally, a punishment of five or six lashes could also be imposed.

Do not get it wrong; this author does not mean to create an authoritarian regime. Those regimes, if they hold elections, usually campaign vigorously, although the campaign is one-sided.

What this author is trying to imagine still involves a democratic system. What makes it different is that the democratic practice of choosing leaders is not accompanied by the usual practices.

There is no campaign period, no efforts to influence voters. In simple terms, there is no campaigning at all.

During nomination, only the candidates, their proposers and their supporters could be present. Only election officials are allowed at the nomination centre.

Reporters and photographers are completely banned.

Similarly, the typical onlookers are also prohibited. Once the nomination process is completed, everyone goes home to continue with their daily routines.

Imagining such a scenario provides some relief. It is like imagining an empty and quiet road in Kuala Lumpur or imagining being single again for a few days.

An election without campaigns would undoubtedly place us in a similar state. There would be no need to feel uncomfortable watching people hurling insults, making accusations and alleging wrongdoings. No need to listen to pledges and promises, most of which might be forgotten.

Those living near fields or public halls used for rallies or speeches could sleep soundly every night without having to block their ears.

The absence of election campaigns would reduce political tension and also minimise disruptions to daily routines.

Without campaigns, candidates and parties would not have to worry about funding. They would not need to struggle with budget allocations for logistics, machinery, equipment, campaign materials and everything else. Not all speakers offer their services for free. Until they are paid, their laughter will be forced.

Voters’ needs must be considered because, for them, elections are a time to be pampered. It is still acceptable if they only ask for a few zinc sheets, but what if they ask for envelopes here and there? Not to mention all the opportunists lurking around to profit.

Therefore, in the current political scenario, funds are very important during election campaigns. If campaigning is not allowed, a lot of money can be saved and issues of money politics and vote-buying would not arise. Automatically, elections would appear clean, but what would be the result?

Candidates who are already known may not have a problem. They can let their service records 'campaign' silently, but what about newcomers? Without campaigns, who would know them?

In the end, do not be surprised if all candidates are the same people, whose combined ages would be older than the Sultan Abdul Samad Building.

Without campaigns, there would be no race to highlight policies and aspirations to voters. No one would offer anything better than what already exists.

Besides aiming to secure victories for the party and its candidates, campaigns also aim to raise public awareness about the importance of voting.

That is why, since 1955, there was the song "Undilah," composed and sung by the late Datuk Zainal Alam. Similarly, the song "Marilah Mengundi" (1978).

In addition to songs, there are many other campaigns in various forms and media that support the same goal. Without campaigns, what would be the attitude of the voters?

Their involvement would surely decrease. There is even a risk they would lose interest and enthusiasm. Therefore, it is not impossible for the turnout percentage to plummet.

In conclusion, campaigns are important. Without campaigns, politics would become rigid and lifeless. Its appeal would diminish and its artistry would be lost.

The first victims would undoubtedly be the politicians. The ones who would lose out would be the ordinary people, the public, because without politicians, there would be no more entertainers.