Warsaw Takes Notes from Seri Menanti: The Art of a Constitutional Coup

Perhaps we have been looking at international politics from the wrong direction. Instead of Negeri Sembilan borrowing ideas from Poland, perhaps Donald Tusk should be asking Seri Menanti for some lessons in managing constitutional institutions.

After all, the Negeri Sembilan episode came first. Warsaw may simply have been following an idea already tested closer to home. The modus operandi of a coup, it seems, is remarkably universal. The only difference is whether one calls it restoring constitutional order, defending the institution or correcting an unfortunate historical arrangement.

Of course, Poland and Negeri Sembilan are hardly the same. For one thing, the Poles have their beloved gołąbki, meat wrapped in cabbage leaves, while Negeri Sembilan folk prefer their meat cooked in coconut milk with enough cili api to make even the bravest diner reconsider his political convictions.

There is, however, another similarity. The Poles have long been the subject of Polish jokes, while Negeri Sembilan people hardly need a comedian. Their distinctive accent, sharp tongue and wonderfully spontaneous perli can be comedy in its own right. A single Negeri Sembilan remark can sometimes deliver more political commentary than an entire parliamentary debate.

Perhaps this is why the comparison is so tempting. Both have a reputation for humour, but neither should be taken lightly when it comes to questions of authority and national identity.

In Poland, liberal Prime Minister Donald Tusk's government finds itself embroiled in a confrontation over the country's Constitutional Tribunal. The government says it is correcting the institutional damage left behind by its predecessors and restoring judicial independence. Its opponents see something rather different as an attempt to neutralise an inconvenient institution and ensure that it no longer stands in the way of the government.

The Tribunal's leadership has been suspended by a senior judge, its control has become contested, and the police have entered the picture. Naturally, everyone claims to be defending the Constitution. It is just that they cannot agree on whose interpretation should prevail.

But why should Poland have all the fun when Negeri Sembilan has already provided its own constitutional drama?

Here, we have an institution whose authority is rooted in centuries of adat, inherited customs, established precedents and an intricate relationship between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undang Yang Empat. Yet, in the present controversy, the very traditions that supposedly define the institution appear to have become matters of competing interpretation.

The removal of the Undang has raised serious questions about customary authority, established procedures and the historical conventions governing the institution. The DKU has its own interpretation of the constitutional and customary provisions. The Undang Yang Empat have another. Meanwhile, the public is left trying to understand how an institution built upon adat can find itself in a dispute over whether its own established practices should be respected.

One cannot help noticing the political irony.

The Yam Tuan's family has connections with liberal-minded circles, particularly through his sons, including Tengku Zain, whose legal background makes the constitutional dimension of this controversy particularly interesting. More importantly, the political camp surrounding the Yam Tuan appears to enjoy the support of PKR, a party that has traditionally championed liberal democracy, human rights, multiculturalism and pluralism.

These are admirable political principles in themselves. But they also invite an uncomfortable question: do these principles apply only when they serve a convenient political outcome, or do they also require respect for inherited institutions, established conventions and customary rights?

PKR has long presented itself as a defender of constitutional democracy against authoritarianism and arbitrary power. It would therefore be interesting to see how its liberal-minded supporters reconcile that political philosophy with a controversy in which traditional officeholders question whether their customary rights and established procedures have been respected.

Perhaps there is a new interpretation of liberal democracy emerging. Democracy is about respecting institutions, provided those institutions do not disagree with you.

Apparently, Poland's Donald Tusk is a liberal. While there exist clear demarcation of liberal vs conservative, the lines do get blurry on issues such Euro adoption and EU membership.  

Of course, Poland and Negeri Sembilan are not identical. A Constitutional Tribunal is not a traditional council of rulers, and the legal foundations of the two disputes are entirely different. But the political theatre has a familiar resemblance. Those claiming to defend an institution are simultaneously accused of disregarding the conventions that give it legitimacy.

The more interesting question, however, is what happens when the immediate political objective takes precedence over institutional continuity.

In Poland, the argument is whether a government can restore judicial independence by employing disputed procedures against the leadership of the very institution it claims to reform.

In Negeri Sembilan, the question is whether adat can be interpreted and applied in a manner that disregards established precedents and customary conventions, simply because one side claims to possess the authority to determine what adat means.

There is a danger in both situations. Once political convenience becomes the justification for setting aside established rules, the next government or the next generation of officeholders may find it equally convenient to reinterpret those same rules. And that is how institutions gradually lose their independence, authority and credibility.

Perhaps Warsaw did learn something from Seri Menanti after all. Or perhaps both have discovered the same political lesson independently. When the rules become inconvenient, the easiest solution is to change the interpretation rather than submit to the rules.

The difference is that Poland is arguing over constitutional democracy, while Negeri Sembilan is arguing over the preservation of adat. One would have thought that the latter, of all institutions, should know better than to allow tradition to become an instrument of political convenience.