Legal experts colluding with the political and economic elites in justifying corruption: the case of Malaysia's Madani government

The article starts from the premise that Malaysian political and economic elites maintain cultural hegemony with the important participation of legal elites who shape legislation through legal interpretation and influence. It situates Malaysia’s political context in a constitutional monarchy historically dominated by UMNO-Barisan Nasional since 1957, notes the Reformasi movement catalyzed by Anwar Ibrahim’s ouster and conviction in 1999, and the emergence of a broad opposition coalition and vibrant civil society. While alternative media and mass mobilization contributed to BN’s downfall in 2018, the paper cautions against over-optimism about progressive change given entrenched power structures. The study aims to investigate how legal elites influence civil society and the legislature in Malaysia, and to assess the implications for CSOs’ autonomy and policy-making. It addresses a gap in understanding the judiciary’s role and legal experts’ input in shaping political outcomes in Malaysia and similar newly industrialized states.

The paper draws on Marxist and neo-Gramscian theory, alongside elite theory, to frame Malaysian power relations. It references Harman’s base-superstructure argument and extends analysis to politics and culture; defines elites and strategic elites (Dahrendorf, Keller) and invokes Bourdieu’s field of power to situate lawyers as dominant agents. Gramsci’s cultural hegemony is central: dominance is sustained through consent and coercion across state and civil society, with mediatization implicated in legitimizing political institutions. Civil society is both a site of hegemony reproduction and ideological contestation. The review highlights Malaysia’s historical-institutionalist milestones shaping civil society: independence (1957), 1969 riots, Operasi Lalang (from 1987), Reformasi (1999), and movements like Bersih, HINDRAF, and Himpunan Hijau that eroded UMNO-BN dominance, culminating in 2018 regime change. It explores socio-religious dynamics, including NEP legacies, Mahathir-era privatization, and alliances between Malay-Muslim political elites and ethnic Chinese business interests, deepening class and interethnic tensions. The co-optation of intellectual resources and professional associations by UMNO is noted as part of moral-cultural hegemony. The review also synthesizes scholarship on cyber networks and physical coalitions in opposition mobilization, while cautioning against reductive narratives like the Green Wave, pointing to broader voter concerns with economic reform and anti-corruption.

The study is a qualitative, theory-driven analysis using a neo-Gramscian framework to examine Malaysia as a case of a transitioning regime. It undertakes a comparative analysis of socio-economic policy approaches under Najib Razak (welfarist programs, targeted transfers) and Anwar Ibrahim (perceived policy ambiguity and limited redistribution), and a critical examination of legal institutions and elite lawyers’ roles in high-profile cases and legislative influence. Evidence is drawn from secondary sources, including academic literature, official statements, media reports, and public records. No primary data from human participants were collected, and there is no experimental component.

- Civil society co-optation: Under the current administration, CSOs and civil society actors have been muted and incorporated into an integral state framework, reducing their autonomy and influence. - Limited redistributive impact: Compared to Najib’s clearer, targeted welfare programs (e.g., BR1M, education and health schemes), Anwar’s efforts at wealth redistribution and empowerment of marginalized communities are limited, with adverse effects on rural constituencies and political support dynamics. - Unfulfilled anti-corruption promises: The government has not met campaign pledges to hold corrupt politicians accountable. Zahid Hamidi’s DNAA and perceived selective justice highlight institutional weaknesses and executive influence over prosecution. - Legal elites’ outsized influence: Prominent lawyers (e.g., Shafee Abdullah, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik) operate across party lines, shaping legislative agendas and prosecutorial priorities, and are consulted in policy formulation, granting influence largely inaccessible to ordinary citizens and CSOs. - Institutional concentration of power: Executive centralization persists (e.g., PM concurrently overseeing finance and Pardons Board), weak separation of powers, and an AG appointment process influenced by the PM, raising conflicts of interest. - Bar Council’s ambivalent role: While historically challenging state hegemony, recent positions reveal a complex, sometimes muted response to sedition law use and changing administrations; regional legal bodies in Sabah and Sarawak resist centralization to preserve legal autonomy. - Theoretical contribution: Incorporating legal professionals into the Gramscian integral state better explains contemporary power consolidation in Malaysia.

The findings support the central research claim that legal elites are integral to Malaysia’s hegemonic order, shaping legislative and prosecutorial outcomes that constrain civil society’s autonomy. By situating the analysis within a neo-Gramscian framework, the paper explains how consent and coercion are mediated through legal institutions, professional associations, and media legitimation. The comparative policy analysis clarifies why Najib’s targeted welfare programs resonated with rural and lower-income voters, while Anwar’s perceived ambiguity and limited redistribution have not shifted material conditions in ways that strengthen his coalition’s legitimacy. The DNAA episode, the AG’s discretionary power, and prominent lawyers’ cross-partisan roles illustrate mechanisms of state capture and elite bargaining, showing continuity of legal-elite influence across regime transitions. This advances understanding of state-society relations by identifying legal professionals as key actors within the integral state, whose activities affect accountability, rights protection, and democratic consolidation.

The paper argues for expanding Gramsci’s integral state theory to include legal elites in the Malaysian context. It shows how UMNO-BN historically maintained hegemony through ideological and repressive apparatuses, and how opposition advances since 2008 and the 2018 transition were enabled by intra-elite splits, alternative media, and mobilization, as well as the delegitimization of Najib by the 1MDB scandal. Despite political shifts, legal elites retain extensive influence over legislative processes through technocratic expertise and networks. The involvement of prominent lawyers, including Shafee Abdullah and Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, under the Anwar government signals continuity in legal-elite shaping and interpretation of legislation. The analysis contributes a neo-Gramscian perspective on Malaysian state-society relations, underscoring the enduring role of legal elites in power consolidation. Future research should examine the mechanisms by which celebrity lawyers and legal professionals maintain influence in transitioning democracies and the implications for democratic consolidation.

The paper does not explicitly state limitations. It is a conceptual, theory-led analysis relying on secondary sources, which may limit generalizability and the ability to establish causality.