English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The proliferation of regime types in the post-Cold War era suggests that the foundation of authoritarianism is highly embedded within the power structure of the ruling elites. In the context of Malaysian politics, the dominant parties constitute the exclusive power bank that projects its desired mechanism of control over the institutions within the political structure. Theoretically, the existence of a parliament signifies the presence of institutionalized democratic procedures, albeit to a varying degree, in a political system. In reality, however, parliaments under semi-authoritarian regimes simply serve the interests of the power holders. Dominant parties strategically exercise their authority to maintain control over the authoritarian regime under the guise of parliamentary democracy. Drawing from Marina Ottaway’s framework on semi-authoritarianism, this article offers two major arguments. First, the parliamentary motion is an integral feature that contours Malaysia’s semi-authoritarian regime, which palpably had led to weak institutionalization. Secondly, strategic semi-authoritarian responses to key issues raised by the opposition have proved to be a success in restricting and subverting opposition-led mobilizations and their extra-parliamentary behaviour, thus further consolidating the semi-authoritarian structure.

Parliamentary motions under a semi-authoritarian regime: evidence from Malaysia