When Protest Reinforces Power: Reading Between The Chants Of July 26

The afternoon of 26 July 2025 will be remembered as a day when democracy spoke, not only through chants and placards, but also through restraint and paradox. In the heart of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysians from various walks of life gathered to demand Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s resignation. But what many believed would be a blow to his leadership may, in time, be remembered as something else entirely: a moment that showcased Malaysia’s democratic maturity and, ironically, solidified the very leadership it sought to challenge.

As an editor with no political posturing but a desk close enough to see trends in public writing, I find myself reflecting deeply. Not as a partisan, but as a citizen and, more importantly, as a witness to the evolving political temperament of this country.

Before dissecting the rally, let us not forget the track record of the man at the centre of it, and let us mark it with a tick, a positive one, like the kind we place on a chore list for a job well done. Except in this case, the checklist is not personal; it is a ledger of national responsibilities. In the span of less than two years, Anwar Ibrahim has navigated Malaysia through regional turbulence, asserting not only leadership but also statesmanship. On 28 July, just two days after the rally, he hosted the Prime Ministers of Thailand and Cambodia in Putrajaya, an unprecedented ASEAN-led peace dialogue to end decades of border tension. It was Malaysia’s first diplomatic intervention of this scale in recent memory. Such a role signals more than competence; it reflects trust in Malaysia’s leadership and neutrality in the region.

Anwar has also stood firm on Palestine, unflinchingly rejecting normalisation with Israel while maintaining Malaysia’s pro-humanitarian Islamic identity in global platforms. In a time when many leaders avoid taking moral positions that may cost diplomatic capital, Anwar has not flinched.

Domestically, the introduction of SARA Aid, a direct assistance to every adult citizen and price control for essential goods like RON95 (now among the world’s cheapest petrol prices) reflect an attempt to cushion the rakyat against global inflation. He is no magician. Anwar has so far weathered discontent without resorting to police batons, tear gas, or water cannons. That is something.

Still, on July 26, the cries were real. Protesters cited rising costs, slow economic delivery, and unmet expectations. These are valid frustrations. After all, any government, no matter how noble its ideals, must still answer the daily question: “Can I afford to live today better than I did yesterday?”

But here’s what complicates the picture: the protest struggled with a lack of shared goals. When asked who should replace Anwar, most protesters gave vague or mistaken names, some even misnaming PAS leaders not currently holding parliamentary seats. The desire for change was strong. But the direction of change? Unclear. This vacuum weakens the protest’s legitimacy. Political dissatisfaction should be accompanied by a coherent plan, not just emotional withdrawal of consent. Protest is powerful when it proposes, not just when it opposes.

Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim, in his editorial titled The Unintended Victory, notes this irony well. He writes that “the very fact that the protest was allowed to proceed without police violence marks a democratic milestone.” Unlike previous decades, where such gatherings would have ended in tear gas, this was a peaceful assertion of dissent. And it happened under Anwar’s government. The Prime Minister did not once silence his critics. He let them walk. This, to me, is the ultimate paradox of the rally. The attempt to expose his weakness ended up revealing his strength, a tolerance for opposition, and the confidence to stand unthreatened in the face of it. This is not common in Southeast Asian democracies. Many still police dissent aggressively. Malaysia, at least that day, did not.

Of course, not all observers believe the rally was as organic as it seemed. The Biro Pemahaman dan Pemantapan Agama of PKR released a strongly worded media statement, suggesting that Anwar’s global stances, especially his criticism of Israel and alignment with Russia and China, have made him a target for reputational sabotage. The idea is not without merit. When a Muslim leader speaks boldly on Palestine, strengthens ties with the East, and repositions Malaysia as a neutral yet principled player, it shakes global expectations. If the international press coverage of the rally focused more on dissatisfaction than on its peaceful conduct, that in itself is telling. As the statement suggests, “Donald Trump tersenyum bersama Netanyahu melihat seorang lagi pemimpin Islam berjaya dilemahkan.” (Donald Trump smiles alongside Netanyahu as another Muslim leader is brought down) Perhaps that is dramatic, but it should not be dismissed outright. We live in an age where perception is foreign policy.

Let us not ignore the emotional truth embedded in the slogans. A young protester quoted by Reuters said she feared corporate taxes would eventually push up food prices. Another, interviewed by AFP, said he saw no results from Anwar’s foreign trips. The opposition’s media machinery amplified these views, and understandably so, but the feelings were sincere. This is the reality of leadership in 2025: the public is not asking for a five-year plan; they are demanding five-day relief. In a global economy that offers little mercy, even well-intentioned governments face backlash if they fail to deliver immediate reassurance. Anwar has held office long enough that the “we inherited this mess” narrative no longer holds. The time has come for him to take full ownership of the present, not just the promise of what’s to come.

What struck me, however, was the hollowness at the heart of the rally’s demands. There was no manifesto, no substitute plan, no speaker capable of rallying intellectual or ideological coherence. Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir made an appearance, arguing that Anwar was not chosen by the people. But neither was Mahathir in 2020, when he exited the government mid-crisis. Selective memory is a poor strategy. Without an alternative roadmap, protest becomes noise. And noise fades.

We are at a crossroads, not of collapse but of confidence. July 26 was a mirror. It showed us the rakyat’s impatience. It revealed the opposition’s fragmentation. It tested the government’s tolerance. And it reminded the Prime Minister that goodwill, even earned through democratic restraint, has an expiry date. This is not coming from blind support, but from a woman who edits for a living and has studied the promises of many leaders. Anwar Ibrahim may not be without flaws, but he is leading with vision, restraint, and a sense of duty honed by long years of struggle. He deserves the time to see his term through.

Let us be clear, criticism is healthy. It should not be dismissed. But replacing a leader mid-stream, especially without a ready successor or consensus, is no solution. We have seen what happens when ambition overrules process. Egypt. Pakistan. Even our own recent past. Anwar is not immune to error. But he is owed the dignity of time; to rise, or to fall, through delivery, not pressure. On 26 July, the rakyat stood up. And so did democracy. That both happened on the same day, and without violence, is something to be proud of. Now, Anwar must listen not just to the slogans, but to the silences between them. The next protest may not be as kind. But for now, the nation remains intact. And that, in these times, is already a quiet kind of victory.

In the days following the rally, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim expressed gratitude to law enforcement agencies for their professionalism in managing the crowd without provocation. He commended their restraint and dedication to democratic values, affirming that peaceful assembly is a constitutional right and one that should be protected, not punished. In thanking the enforcers and the public alike, Anwar did more than respond diplomatically; he reinforced a Malaysia that listens, even when disagreed with. That too is leadership, not in silence or retreat, but in calm and civility.

— BERNAMA

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of BERNAMA)

Follow us on social media :
Facebook : @bernamaofficial, @bernamatv, @bernamaradio
Twitter : @bernama.com, @BernamaTV, @bernamaradio
Instagram : @bernamaofficial, @bernamatvofficial, @bernamaradioofficial
TikTok : @bernamaofficial