This was supposed to be the most democratic party elections with 400,000 odd members having a direct voting right. The country will be impressed had this election proceeded smoothly and civilly. It will have been a show case for democracy and will present PKR as a credible democratic political party that is worthy of walking the road to Putrajaya. However, events seem to prove otherwise.
There seems to be reports of ugly incidences and undemocratic practices.
Candidates with NGO backgrounds seem to be losing while those with political backgrounds get elected. The results seem to validate that politics is only for politicians. This gives rise to questions as whether the elections are marred with political manipulations.
Even some of the PKR members I have met give me the impression that all is not well in PKR because of over-riding concerns for personal political interests rather than party aspirations.
Democracy dictates that leaders must be properly elected according to democratic processes.
What is the democratic equivalent of a "de facto leader" who is all powerful in a political party. Why does the defacto leader not legitimise his position though the democratic process?
Let's us see if Zaid Ibrahim, whom many in PKR consider as a reformer will win or politics will fall back to the politicians based on loyalty to political personalities.
The final outcome of the PKR elections will determine whether PKR is indeed a reform party or a party riding on the sensationalisation of personalities.