APRIL 27 ― As we have seen in the last couple of weeks, as with all elections, there has been the standard tussling for positions and a chance to be a candidate.

Preferred lists will suddenly appear. Incumbents with a proven track record of serving their constituents and maintaining their winning streak at every poll are suddenly left out in the cold as they are unable to jive with their leaders.

Camps that divide betray the factionalism in parties which had decades to sort out their business but still fall short of consolidation.

Even parties like the incumbent federal powers who have a knack of avoiding washing dirty linen in public have been unable to contain their issues. The very public sacking of MyPPP president Tan Sri M. Kayveas is one example.

Institutions such as the judiciary and the registrar of societies have also become participants in this circus, while the people who really matter, the voters watch from the ringside with a tinge of amusement but a huge dollop of annoyance.

So perhaps the choice to be made on May 9 is not as clear as day as some would like to think.

If one cannot get one’s house in order at party and state levels, how can one run the nation’s household in Putrajaya.

Over the last 10 years we witnessed how a lack of harmony among political partners as in the case of Selangor can disrupt the administration of a state.

Perak saw an entire state change hands because of a handful of state reps with questionable loyalties ― also partly due to the failure of PKR and DAP to address these representatives’ dissatisfaction (as well as a lack of options in good candidates available).

And 10 years after riding on the backs of civil society and influencers to win elections, some of these then first-time politicians such as DAP’s Jeff Ooi and PKR’s Gan Pei Nei have now been dropped, having served their purpose. A number of them became casualties as they decided to stand on principles instead of toeing party lines dictated by the leadership.

The thing is dear readers, politicians ― and I am generalising here ― have no principles. If they did, we wouldn’t have sworn enemies ― some of them the root cause of whatever that’s wrong with this country today ― working together.

Ask yourself how many of them, especially the federal opposition, have actually opposed the Anti-Fake News Bill? Why did they not turn up in full force to oppose the Bill when it went to vote?

This is because if they were to take over the federal administration, these repressive laws would also benefit them as the government of the day.

We have already seen in the last decade how those who claim to be defenders of freedom of speech and an independent press have tried and in some cases succeeded in nurturing a compliant and fearful media by barring them from events, berating them at press conferences and taking them to court.

Are we so naïve to believe that the repressive laws we have today will be abolished once a new team takes over?

Both sides have demonstrated ― at the state and federal levels ― that the people’s welfare sometimes take a backseat to political expediency. This is evident in the debates over enacting Bills that constrict the freedom of expression or those involving environment protection.

At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a perfect government or a 100 per cent ethical party or politician. Those who are or attempt to be realise that perfection is an unrealistic idealism.

So at the end of the day, voters just need to weigh the options available to them and make educated choices. It is no longer between the devil you know and the angel you don’t.

We are now faced with familiar demons and must chose the lesser of two evils. Who that is to you, only you can decide.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.