It’s been a strange year for many. For the western world, it has been a year of descent into chaos, with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States overturning the perception that the west is a bastion of liberal, progressive thinking. The moral authority of the two great names of the western world is gone, with demagogues nudging a nativistic and at times virulently racist or xenophobic strain of thought into prominence on the back of rural dissatisfaction with the fruits of the neoliberal era.

Will 2017 will be anything less than tumultuous, particularly in our part of the world? Should we, on our own shores, ignore that same dissatisfaction that has seized headlines in the west? With a general election due soon, Umno seems to be doubling down on a worrying strategy, making an even harder shift to the religious right.

Umno has made even more appeasing sounds towards PAS, with one Umno leader even hinting at a way to get around the need for the consensus of all 14 states and the Conference of Rulers to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act of 1965. The adoption of PAS-like messaging in demanding loyalty to leader and party through religious obligations real or imagined can only deepen the ideology of the extreme religious right.

Many would agree that there is an inherent incompatibility between democracy and theocracy. The idea that someone should be anointed a leader is antithetical to the idea that a leader is someone who wins over the majority. Trying to smash these two ideas together results in a convoluted system that cannot work. However, a theocracy is far easier to maintain, especially in countries where religious identity informs cultural identity, and in our case even on the legal and constitutional level.

Democracy in its purest form is meant to keep in check the powers of the elite and to curb the likelihood of abuse of those powers. In a theocracy, the mistakes of a leader can be excused and forgiven due to the divine nature of his appointment. In that, it undermines the right of the public to criticise and otherwise exercise their democratic rights. It can be argued that there is no coercion in this particular example, but no one should discount the power of inculcated culture and the reinforcement of cultural-religious identity in influencing the voting behaviours of people.

But beyond the effect such politics has on mere voting behaviour, there lies the danger that socio-cultural behaviour will also be influenced. As we can observe from the strain of religious politicking that resulted in Christian America voting for a demagogue of dubious moral and professional character, it becomes all too easy to forgive when vindicated on religious grounds. This in a way parallels PAS’ politics. It uses religious grounds to prohibit members from going against leadership and, just like what has happened in America, emboldens extremist elements who are gleeful that their “message” is being heard and responded to.

The long and short of it is that the election and referendum lessons of the west is relevant to contemporary Malaysia. It is important for the urban and rural elements of society to begin reintegrating. It is only by understanding each other’s struggles and by working together to overcome them that any positive change can be introduced. In the absence of a genuine connection, a constant exchange of information and a shared understanding of the gravity of the situation, we will be trapped in a cycle of voting against our own interests as Malaysians.