In the absence of a pre-agreed system, there is often a resort to force. The use of force in the transfer executive power entails risk of civil war, with consequent loss of life. It is obviously not a desirable option. Modern democratic countries avoid this risk by the electoral process, though it is seldom perfect, and often an instrument for perpetrating fraud. What has recently been termed 'phony democracy' arises when the incumbent party cheats by secretly subverting the voting process. As 'winners' they claim a mandate to continue in power, making a sham of the democratic process.

The detailed methods of the fraud vary with venue, but generally there is careful control of every aspect of the process. The actual events are carefully shielded from monitors. The people operating the election machinery (the election commission) are entrusted with the important duty of registering those members of the public who qualify as voters. On the day of the election they collect the votes in special containers (ballot boxes) for an accurate counting when the polls are declared closed at the end of the day. This is the last act of what is a fully staged show. The rigged results are announced and the curtain comes down on democracy.

In a fair election the voters are divided into geographic zones according to population. Each zone is established by geographic boundary so that the number of eligible voters is approximately equal. This ensures that the winner in each zone will represent about the same number of people. In order to deliberately skew the results, the zones are sometimes drawn to favor a particular candidate. Also, the boundaries may be drawn so that the number of voters necessary to elect a representative are not equal from zone to zone, such that one winner represents ten or twenty times more than the people in another zone.

The majority of voters in a zone of sixty thousand people may elect one representative, while next door the majority in a zone with only five thousand people elect another representative who has the same power of representation. Thus it may be claimed that the inequity deprives fifty-five thousand people of representation. The consequence allows the incumbent party more parliamentary seats than it is entitled, resulting in a violation of democratic principles.

The people in each zone must register their names with the electoral commission in order to vote. This registration process provides a collection of names which then becomes the official list of registered voters. There are numerous opportunities to add spurious names to the list, and to invalidate other names. An accurate list of registered voters is essential to any claim to fairness in the electoral process.

When the incumbent party is allowed to appoint the chairman of the electoral commission, along with all other workers employed in the electoral commission, they are subject to coercion and duress in the performance of their duties. It is essential, therefore, that the electoral commission be an independent body, free of any interference from the incumbent party. If the democratic process is to be effective in a violence-free transfer of power in the country, all candidates must feel that the entire procedure is fair and equitable.

A true and representative democracy depends on a perception of fairness in all aspects of the electoral process. If the winning candidate can be clearly seen to be fraudulently elected, the people feel cheated of their right to make a selection. This frustration combines with resentment at the subsequent actions of the fraudulently elected representative [and the political party that is maintained illegitimately in office].

When the world was restricted to paper registration records the opportunities for fabrication of inaccurate lists of voters was easy, because endless delays and aberrations could be blamed on procedural delays. But now computers are universal, and voter registration is an instantaneous process. Everyone may inspect the list of registered voters for inaccuracies. Corrections can be made instantaneously where valid identity cards are available for verification of qualified voters. The validity of identity cards is commonly a matter of contention, and there must be a fair opportunity for all parties to screen the roll of voters for invalid names.

Timing of elections provides another opportunity for inequity. There must be adequate time for all candidates to present their qualifications to the voters in the zone where they declare their candidacy. The day set aside for the election must be a matter of law, and not subject to a capricious act of the prime minister.

Modern democracies solve the problem of multiple parties [and excessive candidates] who wish to contest the same seat by holding two elections in each zone or district. The first election allows all qualified candidates to present themselves to the voters. The voters have an opportunity to indicate to the candidates which are more highly regarded. The less popular candidates are thus eliminated, and their absence in the final election prevents their supporters from diluting the results in such a way a less desirable candidate may actually receive the most votes, when in actuality the combined votes of the losers indicates that a majority of voters might have preferred another of the candidates.

It is preferable to have only two candidates in the final election. In this way a clear majority can be established. Where there are three or more candidates in the final election the collective votes of the losing candidates can total more than the votes of the winner, and the outcome is less certain to represent the will of the people. The presence of a third candidate provides an opportunity for 'splitting the votes' and 'spoiling' the election.

Malaysia has the opportunity to develop a two-party political system. This is the first step in the maturation of a democratic society. The BN party is successful in developing a cooperative coalition of disparate pluralities. There are only a few agreements which tie the various parties together, and it is the agreement to allow one man to make the decisions that gives the coalition its strength. The prime minister has fused the various ethnic groups in Malaysia by assuring them an equitable division of the perquisites of power [the spoils]. A growing perception that this promise is not being honored is the only real challenge to his position of leadership in the coalition.

There is abundant evidence that the prime minister has lost favor with the majority of Malaysian voters. This presents an embarrassing problem for all members of the BN coalition. He has been so central in maintaining incumbent power that a competent replacement is not evident to public perceptions. In the event of his disability the BN has no acceptable replacement, the present deputy having never subjected himself to any electoral process within the Umno party.

Malaysia then must prepare itself for change. And this change should be a peaceful one, representative of the will of the people, arrived at by clean elections. The elections are not perceived as fair today, therefore an argument can be made that the first priority of the opposition in the preparation to challenge the incumbent coalition should be to insist on the independence of the election commission and the computerization of all aspects of the electoral process so that all may see that no fraud occurs. The dates of elections should be made a matter of law, removed from the caprice and machinations of the prime minister. Until this is achieved with certainty the prospect for reform through a peaceful transfer of power does not exist in Malaysia.