One leader, one seat: DAP’s overdue reckoning

Kua Kia Soong

The humiliating defeat of DAP secretary general Anthony Loke in the Negeri Sembilan state election should not merely be seen as an electoral setback.

It should be remembered as the moment that finally exposed one of the party’s oldest and least democratic habits: the insistence by its power brokers on contesting both Parliament and state assembly seats.

For decades, the DAP has justified this practice under the convenient excuse of ‘leadership continuity’ or ‘strategic necessity’.

In reality, it has become little more than a mechanism for concentrating power in the hands of a small political elite. No democratic party that genuinely believes in leadership renewal should tolerate the same individuals occupying multiple elected offices while hundreds of capable younger members wait indefinitely for an opportunity to serve.

Every state seat monopolised by a federal heavyweight is one less chance for a new generation to gain legislative experience, prove themselves to voters, and develop into future national leaders.

This looks less like public service. It appears to be more about political control. The irony is especially painful for a party that has spent decades presenting itself as Malaysia’s most democratic political organisation.

Democracy is not merely about holding internal elections every few years. Democracy also requires sharing political opportunities, decentralising authority, and letting senior leaders to make way for younger successors.

Instead, DAP has too often practised the opposite. The concentration of parliamentary and state positions among a handful of senior leaders has created an unhealthy culture.

Political influence becomes increasingly centralised. Local leaders become dependent on national personalities. State branches struggle to cultivate independent leadership. Young politicians find promotion blocked unless an established figure decides to retire – a decision that rarely comes.

Loke’s defeat has now demonstrated the risks of this outdated strategy. Rather than strengthening the party, concentrating responsibility in one individual has left it more vulnerable. When one political heavyweight falls, the consequences reverberate throughout the organisation.

A healthy political party distributes leadership. It does not concentrate it.

Many mature democracies recognise this principle. Political renewal is not treated as a threat but as a necessity.

Senior politicians mentor successors rather than permanently occupying every strategic position available. Institutions become stronger because they are built on teams rather than personalities. The DAP should learn that lesson before voters teach it again.

The practice of contesting both federal and state seats belongs to another era. It reflects a politics of insecurity, where leaders appear unwilling to trust anyone but themselves.

Such behaviour sends an unmistakable message to younger members: your loyalty is welcome, but your leadership is not. No party can claim to champion meritocracy while denying opportunities to its own talented members.

One leader, one seat

Loke’s defeat should therefore become more than an individual setback. It should serve as the catalyst for sweeping democratic reform within the DAP.

The party should adopt a clear principle: one leader, one elected legislature. MPs should concentrate on national issues. State assembly members should build state leadership.

Federal leaders should resist the temptation to dominate state politics simply because they possess greater name recognition. In the UK, Andy Burnham had to give up the Greater Manchester mayoralty once he won a seat in Parliament. [British rules do not allow him to hold both roles at once.]

Such reform would immediately create opportunities for younger leaders, strengthen state organisations and broaden the party’s talent pool. It would also reduce the excessive concentration of power that has characterised the DAP’s internal culture for far too long.

If the DAP genuinely belie eves in democratic renewal for Malaysia, it must first demonstrate democratic renewal within its own ranks. The old guard has often spoken about institutional reform. Now it is time to practise it.

Loke’s defeat should not merely close one electoral chapter. It should close the chapter on the DAP’s culture of political monopolies.

Anything less would simply confirm that, despite all its rhetoric about reform, the DAP remains in the grip of an entrenched political elite. That elite appears to have mistaken leadership for ownership and public office for personal entitlement.

No leader is indispensable

One of the hallmarks of mature democratic parties around the world is that they institutionalise leadership renewal. Whether through formal term limits, succession planning, or simply an established political culture of stepping aside, successful parties understand that no individual is indispensable.

This was laid down some years ago by one of the DAP’s more principled leaders, Karpal Singh. The DAP’s leaders are expected not merely to win elections, but to cultivate the next generation capable of replacing them.

The best political leaders measure their success not by how long they remain in office, but by how many capable successors they leave behind.

This is why many democratic systems consciously avoid the excessive accumulation of political office in a single individual. Leadership is dispersed rather than concentrated. Younger politicians are deliberately given opportunities to contest winnable seats, gain administrative experience, and establish their own public credibility.

Such renewal strengthens institutions because the party becomes larger than any one personality.

The DAP has increasingly moved in the opposite direction. Instead of practising succession planning, it has become dependent upon an increasingly small circle of senior leaders who seem unwilling to relinquish political territory. Contesting both parliamentary and state seats has become less a strategic necessity than a symbol of entrenched political entitlement.

This is precisely the political culture DAP spent decades condemning in Barisan Nasional. For years, the DAP criticised Umno for concentrating power in the hands of political warlords, suppressing younger talent, rewarding loyalty over renewal, and treating constituencies as personal fiefdoms.

Yet when senior DAP leaders insist on simultaneously dominating both federal and state politics, what meaningful distinction remains?

The party that once demanded institutional reform now risks becoming an institution resistant to reform. Every parliamentary leader who also occupies a state seat sends an unmistakable message throughout the party hierarchy: advancement depends less on merit than on waiting for the old guard to vacate their positions.

Such a culture breeds frustration and discourages initiative. It eventually drives away talented younger members who see little prospect of meaningful advancement.

No political party can indefinitely survive on yesterday’s heroes.

Loke’s electoral defeat should therefore be seen not simply as the loss of one senior politician. It is a warning against an outdated organisational culture that has concentrated authority for far too long.

Rather than seeking another justification for maintaining the status quo, the DAP should seize this chance to undertake genuine democratic reform. It should adopt a clear principle that no senior leader should monopolise both federal and state representation at once.

Leadership renewal should become an institutional obligation rather than a matter of personal discretion.

If the DAP truly wishes to distinguish itself from the old politics it has spent half a century attacking, it must demonstrate three things.

Leadership is a trust, not a possession.

Public office is a responsibility, not a lifetime entitlement.

And the strongest leaders are those confident enough to make themselves replaceable.

Otherwise, the party risks becoming what it once opposed: an organisation where political power is accumulated, succession is postponed, and reform remains a slogan rather than a practice.

Dr Kua Kia Soong is a former MP and director of human rights group Suaram.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: