Why do some ruling parties attain dominance and remain in power? Focusing on a key case of a dominant party, the UMNO in Malaysia, this article explores its origins and an adaptation strategy under declining dominance. Regarding the origins, the article argues that a leader’s credible commitment to providing electoral security for local elites enables collective action to develop resource and spatial advantages. Specifically, the first section revisits the historical process and explains how an initial electoral setback provided leaders with an opportunity to launch administrative reforms, which enabled them to overcome local reluctance and promote the party as a centrist patron. The second section explores why the UMNO declined since 2008 and how it tried to survive. Based on a survey data analysis, it argues that the UMNO found room to play a spatial strategy of “Rikerian Offence” to reinforce its role as a chauvinistic patron, even at the cost of abandoning the center.
Abdul AzizZ (1974) An Introduction to the Machinery of Government in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
2.
Abdullah SanusiA (1977) The district office as an institution of development. PhD, Dissertation, University of Southern California, USA.
3.
BlaydesL (2011) Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak’s Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BrownG (2005) Playing the (non)ethnic card: The electoral system and ethnic voting patterns in Malaysia. Ethnopolitics4(4): 429–445.
5.
BrownleeJ (2007) Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ChinJ (2013) So close and yet so far: Strategies in the 13th Malaysian elections. The Round Table102(6): 533–540.
7.
ChinJWongCH (2009) Malaysia’s electoral upheaval. Journal of Democracy20(3): 71–85.
8.
ChoG (1990) The Malaysian Economy: Spatial Perspectives. London: Routledge.
9.
CrouchH (1996) Government and Society in Malaysia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
EsmanM (1972) Administration and Development in Malaysia: Institution Building and Reform in a Plural Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
11.
FaalandJParkinsonJSanimanP (1990) Growth and Ethnic Inequality: Malaysia’s New Economic Policy. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications and Distributors Sd. Bhd.
12.
FergusonC (1965) The story of development in Malaya (now Malaysia): Some aspects. Journal of Local Administration Overseas4: 149–164.
13.
FunstonJ (1980) Malay Politics in Malaysia: A Study of the United Malays National Organization and Party Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann Educational Books
14.
GeddesB (1999) What do we know about democratization after twenty years?Annual Review of Political Science2: 115–144.
15.
GreeneK (2007) Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
GreeneK (2008) Dominant party strategy and democratization. American Journal of Political Science52(1): 16–31.
17.
GreeneK (2010) The political economy of authoritarian single-party dominance. Comparative Political Studies43(9): 1–27.
18.
HamayotsuK (2013) Towards a more democratic regime and society? The politics of faith and ethnicity in a transitional multi-ethnic Malaysia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs2: 61–88.
19.
HorowitzD (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
HwangIW (2003) Personalized Politics: The Malaysian State Under Mahathir. Singapore: ISEAS.
21.
KesslerC (1978) Islam and Politics in a Malay State: Kelantan 1838–1969. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
KuhontaEM (2011) The Institutional Imperative: The Politics of Equitable Development in Southeast Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
MagaloniB (2006) Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
MagaloniB (2008) Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule. Comparative Political Studies41(4/5): 715–741.
26.
MeansG (1991) Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
27.
MilneRSMauzyDK (1978) Politics and Government in Malaysia. Singapore: ISEAS.
28.
MooreDE (1960) The United Malays National Organization and the 1959 Malayan elections: A study of a political party in action in a newly independent plural society. PhD dissertation, University of California, USA.
29.
NakamuraM (2015) Malay chauvinism and an authoritarian turn of the Najib administration. [In Japanese]. IDE World Trend233: 53–59.
30.
NessG (1967) Bureaucracy and Rural Development in Malaysia. Berkley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
31.
Nik HashimWI (1994) National development planning in Malaysia: System, structure and process. In: INTAN (ed.) Malaysian Development Experience: Changes and Challenge. Kuala Lumpur: INTAN, pp. 277–298.
32.
OngKM (2015) Malaysian political parties and coalitions. In: WeissM (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Malaysia. London: Routledge, pp. 22–35.
33.
PepinskyT (2009) Economic Crisis and the Breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes: Indonesia and Malaysia in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
PuthuchearyM (1970) The operations rooms in Malaysia as a technique in administrative reform. In: LeeHBSamonteAG (eds) Administration Reform in Asia. Manila: EROPA, pp. 165–198.
35.
RabushkaAShepsleK (1972) Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
36.
RatnamKJMilneRS (1967) The Malaysian Parliamentary Election of 1964. Singapore: University of Malaya Press.
37.
ReuterOJ (2017) The Origins of Dominant Parties: Building Authoritarian Institutions in Post-Soviet Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
ReuterOJGandhiJ (2010) Economic performance and elite defection from hegemonic parties. British Journal of Political Science41: 83–110.
39.
ReuterOJRobertsonG (2012) Subnational appointments in authoritarian regimes: Evidence from Russian gubernatorial appointments. The Journal of Politics74(4): 1023–1037.
40.
RudnerM (1975) Nationalism, Planning and Economic Modernization in Malaysia: The Politics of Beginning Development. London: Sage Publications.
41.
ShafruddinBH (1987) The Federal Factor in the Government and Politics of Peninsular Malaysia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
42.
ShamsulAB (1986) From British to Bumiputera Rule: Local Politics and Rural Development in Peninsular Malaysia. Singapore: ISEAS.
43.
ShamsulAB (1988a) The ‘battle royal’: The UMNO elections of 1987. Southeast Asian Affairs 1988: 170–188.
44.
ShamsulAB (1988b) Development and change in rural Malaysia: The role of the village development committee. Southeast Asian Studies26(2): 218–227.
45.
SlaterD (2008) Can Leviathan be democratic? Competitive elections, robust mass politics, and state infrastructural power. Studies in Comparative International Development43: 252–272.
46.
SlaterD (2010) Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
SmithB (2005) Life of the party: The origins of regime breakdown and persistence under single-party rule. World Politics57: 421–451.
48.
SvolikM (2012) The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
TemplemanKA (2012) The origins and decline of dominant party systems: Taiwan’s transition in comparative perspective. PhD, Dissertation, University of Michigan, USA.
50.
WashidaH (2018) Making sense of electoral setbacks and conservative backlash. In: NakamuraMKumagaiS (eds.) Malaysia in the Post-Mahathir Era: Changes in the Politics and the Economy. [In Japanese]. Chiba: IDE, pp. 89–138.
51.
WashidaH (2018) Distributive Politics in Malaysia: Maintaining Authoritarian Party Dominance. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781138634510.
52.
WeissM (2013) Malaysia’s general elections: Same result, different outcome. Asian Survey53(6): 1135–1158.
53.
WelshB (2016) Malaysia’s fallen hero: UMNO’s weakening political legitimacy. In: WelshB (ed.) The End of UMNO? Essays on Malaysia’s Dominant Party. Petaling Jaya: Gerakbudaya Digital Sdn Bhd, pp. 186–216.
