COMMENT | The easy line here is that you cannot sell out if you do not have any principles in the first place. I mean some Pakatan Harapan political operatives talk about political frogs as anathema to democracy but take this “hear no evil, see no evil” stance when it comes to opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim attempting his various counter coups.

Also this idea of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) as a means to constrain former Umno prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, merely reflects the kind of personality instead of policy politics that is driving Harapan. 

And it sounds absurd, you claim you are working for the rakyat but then say that this is a political strategy to constrain your political opponent, especially since Anwar was sniffing around personalities of the court cluster hoping to hitch a ride to Putrajaya and Harapan did not seem to have an issue with this.

Never mind that the court cluster is merely a symptom rather than the disease itself. Remember that the old maverick claimed “corruption” was no longer a serious issue when Harapan took over, then when Harapan fell, said, “both sides were bribing people”. 

Also important is that Harapan’s messaging has always been putrid. While Amanah's Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad did attempt to stay on message drawing a distinction between this MOU and a Confidence and Supply Agreement (CSA), various political operatives and talking heads have muddied the water when it comes to this important issue. 

This definitional faux pas always seems to revolve around the idea that Harapan has not lost its “oppositional voice”.

The reason Harapan is obsessed with the idea that folks think that the coalition has lost its cajones is that Harapan always bends to the whims of the Malay establishment at the expense of campaign promises and its foundational ideas.

Some folks are sceptical of this MOU. They are right to be. Indeed, if you view this deal with anything other than scepticism, you are on the wrong track. I encourage folks to remain sceptical but more importantly hold both parties to this deal accountable. 

However, they are those who outright reject this deal, as some sort of betrayal of Harapan’s position or selling out to the system, and they would be wrong.

Scepticism is needed for this endeavour because neither parties are good-faith actors. Umno is, well, Umno, and Harapan is a coalition that has never found a campaign promise, they did feel the instinctive need to renege on to appease the Malay political establishment.

Now I am sure there will be people who would go through this deal with a fine-tooth comb and point out the inconsistencies, dissonance and various other problems with it. And they would be right to do so, even those who reject this deal.

What is important to remember is that if there is political will, then all these problems, no matter how technical, bureaucratic, legal or messy, could be overcome. 

The reality in any form of democracy is that political operatives do not want to act for various reasons. This could be because of special interest groups or party politics. 

The issue of Harapan getting duped should not be a central theme here, what is important is how much political will, will Harapan extend into making this deal a political reality?

Having said that, notwithstanding that this MOU could mean - emphasis on could mean - bupkis, this is an extremely important first step in bipartisanship of the new political landscape in this country. 

Of course, how long this new political landscape lasts remains to be seen. However, as long as it does, this kind of political deal normalised specific political behaviour, which has been demonised for years by both sides but which is part of normal behaviour in democracies the world over.

Two important points need to be made. 

Firstly, this reform deal involves issues that are important to the Harapan base. I doubt very much that Perikatan Nasional (PN)/BN voters place as much emphasis on these issues. 

This is not a slight, this is merely an acknowledgement that people who vote for Umno, PAS and Bersatu have a different set of issues they vote on.

Now, it is pointless relitigating why Harapan did not carry out reforms. What is important is that Harapan cannot blame the old maverick anymore for being an impediment. 

Hence, if the base sees that Harapan is sincere in attempting to carry out this MOU, then this will fire up the base for the next election.

So, DAP's Damansara MP Tony Pua is wrong to say that Harapan does not lose anything. What Harapan needs to demonstrate is that they did everything in their power to get these reforms because otherwise, the 'blaming Umno" card may just create voter apathy in the Harapan base, if the reforms fall through.

This MOU also gives civil society a launchpad to holding political operatives accountable, especially the ruling regime, for what they say or claim to want for the country and the rakyat. This is why even as a symbol this MOU does have some potency. 

By lessening the confrontational dialectic, the discourse changes from solely blaming Umno alone, to how did both parties fail (if that is the case) the rakyat by not realising this MOU.

Secondly, a large section of the voting public voted for these Malay uber alles political parties. Hence any form of collaboration - however you define it - between mainstream political parties, means that the rakyat, however they vote, are being served by their elected representatives. 

This brings down the temperature from “all or nothing” politics to “lets us see how we can work together”, which for the time being means that partisans have a stake in seeing that government works. If this takes hold on a state level, even better.

We have a very serious problem when both the Harapan (specifically the DAP) base demonises Umno/PAS voters as immoral and the Umno/PAS base doing the same thing. Bipartisanship starting with issues that directly affect how we vote and how elected representatives govern are beneficial to everyone, even though some may not see it as such.

Again, how much of this is a pipe dream remains to be seen, but if political operatives cannot even bring themselves to sit around a table - which is essentially what this MOU is - political as normal merely perpetuates some kind of Orwellian political war (something which someone I admire said) which never ends.

While I will remain sceptical, the important thing is now Harapan owns this MOU. If they manage to work with the regime and pull off these reforms, they would have something worth selling to the base but more importantly to voters who are undecided on Harapan.