Beyond ethno-populism: How elite groups manipulate identity politics in Malaysia

The prominence accorded to outspoken Umno figures such as Akmal Saleh often overstates their real traction within Malaysia.

While sections of political parties and the ethnic minorities may amplify such voices, the broader public – including the Malay community itself – have largely disengaged.

This disengagement is historically evidenced by Umno’s long-term electoral decline.

The erosion began with a significant setback in the 2008 general election (with Barisan Nasional losing its two-thirds’ majority) and a further decrease in popular vote share in the 2013 election.

The 2018 general election was a watershed moment when Umno, leading the Barisan Nasional coalition, lost its first national poll. Umno dropped to 54 seats and 20.6% of the popular vote.

By the 2022 general election, the decline accelerated, with the party winning only 26 parliamentary seats – a record low.

If the arguments advanced by ethno-populist actors truly resonated with the lived realities of the ethnic Malays, Umno would not have suffered systematic abandonment across generations.

The persistence of such rhetoric nonetheless reveals something deeper: not popular conviction, but the continued operation of elite groups within Malaysia’s political economy – networks that instrumentalise ethnicity, institutions and electoral mechanisms to preserve oligarchic control (Azizi Othman, 2020).

Elite capture and structural fairness

It is empirically undeniable that the New Economic Policy (NEP) improved the living standards of the Malays in aggregate terms. Poverty reduction, expanded tertiary education access, and the emergence of a Malay middle class are historical facts.

However, the NEP also generated unintended structural distortions that fractured the Malay community internally.

Rather than fostering broad-based productive capacity, the NEP increasingly incubated ethno-capitalism – a system where state-mediated rents, licences and concessions accrued to politically connected elites.

This created a dependency syndrome, where accumulation depended less on innovation or productivity and more on proximity to state power. Over time, identity politics supplanted developmental politics.

The result is paradoxical: material uplift coexisted with social fragmentation, declining competitiveness and political cynicism. Malay workers and the lower-middle classes increasingly recognised that ethnic rhetoric served elite accumulation rather than collective advancement.

Malaysia’s political system today functions less as a competitive democracy than as an electoral oligarchy.

Power circulates within overlapping cabals comprising the political elites, party-linked business groups, government-linked companies and bureaucratic gatekeepers.

These networks do not primarily seek ideological coherence. Instead, they appear to manage electoral arithmetic, institutional control and patronage flows.

Ethnic mobilisation appears to be deployed tactically – activated when legitimacy wanes, muted when stability is threatened.

Within this framework, Umno’s contemporary relevance lies not in popular mandate but in its apparently residual control over electoral boundaries and rural weighting, party-state institutional memory and patronage networks embedded in the bureaucracy.

This explains why certain outspoken Umno figures command media attention disproportionate to their societal credibility. Their function is performative: sustaining identity anxieties that distract from elite consolidation.

The widespread perception that Umno cannot meaningfully work with Pas – except in a subordinate role – further exposes the fragility of ethno-religious coalitions.

Pas’ ideological dominance alienates many urban Malays and ethnic minorities, while Umno’s organisational decline prevents it from acting as a stabilising senior partner.

Yet this perceived incompatibility is often exaggerated to sustain polarisation.

Polarisation itself is politically useful: it narrows the discursive field, forcing voters to choose between identity blocs rather than developmental alternatives.

In this sense, Pas–Umno tensions are less ideological absolutes than instruments within a broader cabal logic.

Beyond symbolic conflicts

A critical strategic error by reformist actors is engaging ethno-populists on their own unsubstantiated terrain. By responding to groundless claims as if they merit serious debate, credibility is inadvertently conferred upon figures who otherwise lack empirical legitimacy.

This reactive posture reinforces the cabal system by elevating symbolic conflicts over material policy failures, normalising elite-driven identity narratives and diverting attention from structural reform.

Silence or reframing – rather than direct rebuttal – often weakens such actors more effectively.

Nationhood is not sustained by ethnic gatekeeping but by shared material futures. The continued dominance of cabals undermines this by replacing citizenship with clientship, substituting productivity with rent-seeking, and fragmenting society along managed identity lines.

Malaysia’s stalled nation-building project reflects not popular division, but elite orchestration.

The people’s growing disengagement from ethno-populist rhetoric signals an intuitive recognition of this reality.

The decline of Umno’s mass appeal, the limited credibility of firebrand figures and the erosion of identity politics all point to a society increasingly sceptical of elite manipulation.

The real struggle in Malaysia is not between ethnic groups, but between an entrenched oligarchic cabal and the unfinished project of inclusive nationhood.

Breaking this cycle requires shifting discourse away from performative identity conflicts and towards dismantling the political–economic structures that sustain elite dominance.

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: