The Future of UMNO-2

There's an interesting management book written by two authors which must be taken up as reading material in addition to the current UMNO vogue of mentioning Blue Ocean Strategy. Yes, we know lah, the PM reads BOS- but we get turn off when others trip over each other trying to see who mention the title more in the hope the PM notices them. There are many people around who make it a habit of quoting management books which are the rage of the times treating as though they contained some formula of biblical significance. Itulah- the last time your mothers told you to take up the harder subjects, you chose to membaca hikayat and all those books with fairy tales. Now as you grow into adults, you suddenly come across some literature totally alien to you and therefore you quickly adopt them as breakthroughs. To you that is.

Barry J. Nalebuff and Adam M. Brandenburger used the term co opetition as the title of a book on game theory. ( Co-opetition) The term implies that while you compete you must also cooperate. Two seemingly contradicting postulates but which are in reality two sides of a coin. For example, UMNO needs to cooperate with its competitors on common grounds- such as the war against corruption, advocacy of the rule of law, establishing the rules of the game to compete. We are all for those things. But UMNO people must have an open mind- UMNO's willingness to co-opetitate must not be seen as a weakened position. Remember our long term interest is to secure market leadership. Our competitors too need to embrace this new way of competing and cooperation at the same time. We can agree on certain principles and universal values. Otherwise, we ALL shall be seen as digging in our partisan foxholes. But never mind if they don't. We do well for ourselves.

This new paradigm is worth looking into. In the business game we can have several winners: 'The goal is to do well for yourself.' In the game of politics, the same idea should be adopted. We all can do well for ourselves. Very often politicians from both divides have the human tendency to try to 'blow them out of the water' when challenging other competitors. Sadly this tendency is present in the 2 biggest Malay parties- UMNO and PAS. When challenged in turn, the tendency is to denigrate the opposition and to engage in wishful thinking about its certain total failure: when that fails to materialise, the next step is to go to extremes in the attempt to assert the threatened superiority. PAS has been quick to label UMNO people as infidels( when its 'superiority as spokesman of Islam is threatened) while UMNO has been calling PAS as empty vessels making a lot of noises about Islam but hasn't implemented anything to that effect.

Think of wastage. Nobody has calculated the total cost UMNO lost in the effort to drive PAS from its position in Kelantan. Or the costs involved when trying to blow PAS out of the water and the cost to PAS as it attempts to inflict the same on UMNO. UMNO itself handed Kelantan into PAS's lap in the 70's when it decided to include PAS into the BN. UMNO became host to the political germ in the form of PAS. Both are offering similar products complementing each other.

UMNO could have spent resources better had it applied them to states like Penang , Perak and Selangor. Because these are offering competing products. The problem with UMNO is, it has this 'enemy' syndrome which encourages wasteful choking up of resources on its part which is confronted with reciprocal behaviour from PAS that in the end result in the weakening of the two political parties. Sadly this enemy syndrome is more pronounced in UMNO than in PAS. PAS has concentrated to do well for itself in Kelantan rather than expend resources in blowing UMNO out of the water. Not so with UMNO- they adopted maniacally xenophobic tactics when dealing with PAS. In doing so, they come perilously close to opposing Islam as PAS is closely associated to that cause. As the opposing side, I like it when PAS is represented by the bellicose voices of Messrs Tantowi and gang.

In reality, the two protagonists in the world of Malay politics have more similarities rather than differences. Both are Malay based, both Islamic and share the same cultural and historical heritage. I mean we can compete but not to the extent of each trying to do scorched earth tactics on each other. If you offer similar products and you compete mercilessly, it's a zero sum game. You can't get more without lessening what the other gets.

What about the blow them out of the water attitude? These reactions, are basically more emotional than rational. As Nalebuff and Brandenburger note, the 'win-lose' is the best strategy so long as you get the win. As the last 7 or 8 elections have shown, UMNO can't win like it usually did in the past. And in the 12^th GE, UMNO lost 5(now 4) states and its 2/3 commanding majority. So, it has to abandon this notion, that it can annihilate the enemy. It's better for UMNO to focus on how to do well for itself.

Doing well for itself calls for UMNO to re-examine and transform its own structure. Build up on its organisational strength by ensuring good and capable leadership all around. Imbibe UMNO with better values. Don't compromise on quality and similar values. Adopt elements of the new nationalism- declare war on corruption and mediocrity. We know the Pakatan people haven't got superior quality people too. They are scrapping the bottom of the barrel which is abundantly clear when it is forced to accept renegades from ruling coalition partners. UMNO cannot bank its resurgence on the demerits of its opponents. It must rebound on its own native strengths and capabilities. Hence rather that applying resources in trying to blow out its opponents, better spend them on rebuilding UMNO.

Most times the 'win-win' is the most effective approach: 'You can compete without having to kill the opposition.' The choice has to be made by 'hard-headed thinking.'

So, the task for right minded Malaysians is to find hard headed thinkers. When UMNO wanted to establish common grounds to cooperate with PAS, I was sceptical about the idea if such a move only serves to act as deterrent to UMNO undertaking its own transformation. That is no longer my position if UMNO does what are needed in transforming its brand. UMNO therefore appears to have saner voices and hard headed thinkers than PAS. Old school PAS is restrained by the conservative thinking of people like Nik Aziz and Husam Musa and their supporters who are hardened in their thinking that UMNO is the enemy.

An understanding of the idea argued by Nalebuff and Brandenburger is instructive. Their advice argues that the strategic/tactical stance is decisive.

For example, in many markets, it's a positive gain when new competition arrives. If you're running the only antique shop for miles around, far fewer people will call than if half-a-dozen others cluster round you. The more companies supply connection to the Internet, and the more sites that are established on the World Wide Web, the more users will pile in - to the advantage of everybody. You have to be both Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde, because...

• There's a bias towards seeing every new player as a threat
• But many players complement you as well as compete with you
• Look for complementary opportunities as well as competitive threats

How do hard-headed and clever planners react to this kind of scenario? Most probably, the hard-headed politicians will react to this seemingly gentlemanly theory by pointing to the innumerable cases where those thuggish competitors have attacked by undermining successful initiatives with me-toos. They retaliate in kind, believing they are likely to win. Take an example. Islam Hadhari. It was implemented probably to undermine what PAS has been doing believing that with its resources, UMNO can cut off PAS at its base. I think, in the classic Hollywood terminology, this is one Islamic show that bombed badly. No one talks about Islam Hadhari nowadays and the former Brig- Gen who now sits as minister in the PM's office is left with the responsibility of how best to salvage the idea. At one time, he was also a vocal purveyor of the idea. Let's see whether he can adopt the co-opetition strategy.

If he is a hard-headed and clever planner (not just hard-headed behind that steely persona), he copes with this by building defences against aggression and/or imitation into that hard-headed and clever thinking. As Nalebuff and Brandenburger explained:

1. When N&B say build the strongest possible customer franchise, with the highest possible customer satisfaction translates politically into franchising all the suraus and masjids in this country with the same module and start selling it to the public. . All the imams and even the chairman of the management committee must be instructed with the same modules so that they speak consistently and with the same voice. They must be turned into knowledgeable workers. Nothing is more depressing, when imams don't seem to know what they are talking and even worse by saying they admit they don't know anything about this new product. Your own people kill your product. This kind of honesty doesn't come from the purest of intentions but results from stupidity- you simply haven't learn the new skill sets.

2. Support the franchise by investing heavily in the brand translates into saying you concentrate resources at the frontlines not in the backrooms. The ones needing resources and help are those in the frontlines dealing with customers on a day to day basis.

3. Raise volume to take advantage of the learning curve - which reduces costs as output increases. This will entail doing the maximum number of programmes on a continuing basis. Remember, victory over an idea must be won over and over again.

4. Aggressively protect your market share/volume to prevent others from winning the above economies of scale. This translates into leaving no room for your competitors to duplicate the steps you have taken because you have offered the public better services and products which are consistently supplied.

Co-opetition requires different skills and mind-sets. The excellent strategist seeks to gain market share, not through having the lowest costs in the business, but through using that position as a means to an end - the object being industry leadership. That's where co-opetition comes. Take the example of trying to outdo PAS in Islam. UMNO came out with its Islam Hadhari image. It flooded the market with this brand hoping to undercut the Islam PAS is offering. PAS retaliated by offering its Islam through the usual and more cost effective method- that of 'selling' their products and services through the ubiquitous suraus and mosques. UMNO wanted to do it with much fanfare and festivity. At the end of 5 years, our understanding of Islam Hadhari is probably not much better than our understanding about it when Islam Hadhari the brand was first announced

Think of co-opetition in the more familiar comparison between tactics and strategies. Tactics are short term which appear to contradict with strategy, which is long term. The tactics which you take need not oppose strategic interests but complement them. That's why divorcing strategy from tactics is impossible. UMNO's strategy was to resume fast growth by expanding strongly into re-branding Islam. The tactical drive was to inundate the market with its Hadhari brand in such manner which PAS wouldn't seek to match. PAS stayed clear using this method. The result for UMNO was profitless growth. We still don't understand what Hadhari is while our understanding of Islam remains unaffected by Hadhari. The strategy of gaining leadership in the cause of Islam would have been obtained more cost effectively by carrying out complementary tactics – by offering better preaching methods and better preachers. Surau and mosque goers want knowledge deepening services and not just book-cover understanding. Surau and mosque goers want less fire and brimstone-free proselytising and more spiritual soothing calls to religion. The idea is to manage the powerful combinations of strategy and tactics or using the novel management term, stratics and tactegy.