In every country with pretensions to democratic practice, the manner in which elections are conducted is a good indicator of the definition that country gives to the term "democracy."

The basic requirements are simple. There must be a national connection by birth or acquired citizenship. The mentally infirm are typically excluded, and in some countries anyone convicted of a felony cannot vote.

The voter must meet a minimum age, and must register with the election commission according to place of residence. No one gets more than one vote.

The election commission maintains a list of all those who are registered by area, and routinely removes the names of those who die, have moved away, or have become citizens of another country. The electoral list of registered voters must be accurate before each election.

The preparation of the list of registered voters is an essential function of a democratic government, and failure in this regard naturally results in lowered international esteem. The manner in which the voting process proceeds on the appointed election day is subject to observation by all the citizens, and any attempt to prevent public monitoring is taken as tantamount to tampering with the tally.

The presence of policemen in the neighborhood of polling places is intimidating, and gives the casual observer an impression that their presence is to serve other than a neutral purpose. Election officials who require the protection of policemen give rise to suspicion that the voting machinery is less than honest, and the policemen are there to ensure that this deceit is kept secret.

All political parties participate to provide oversight, and each candidate must be assured that all votes cast are free of taint. Each vote should be free of duress or pecuniary reward. No vote can be counted which cannot be matched with a person properly registered at that polling place and personally present to put the properly punched or penciled ballot into a box that was seen by all to be empty at the beginning of the day. 

Each ballot box should be sealed after all parties are convinced that there are no votes in it at the start, and then the seals signed by the appointed observers. The ballot boxes must be in plain sight throughout the voting process, and nothing should be placed into the box other than the single ballot given to each registered voter in turn.

No voter may receive more than one ballot, nor put more than one ballot in the box. The name of each voter is checked off as the ballot is given and returned. At the end of the day, the number of votes in the box must exactly match the number and names of the voters who have appeared at the polling place during the announced hours of the election.

The opening of each ballot box must be witnessed by observers from each party contesting, and there must be no question that every effort is being made to arrive at a true and accurate count. The tally sheets and the ballots should immediately be made available to all parties, and the results communicated to a central office for the final tally. The final tally must match the individual tally sheets when they are totaled.

The ballot boxes must not be moved from place to place without the personal representative of all contesting parties being present to prevent opportunity for improper procedure to arise. Each ballot box must remain sealed and in the plain sight of all parties contesting until the end of the day, when it is opened for the counting of the ballots to begin.

The counting of the ballots must be made in the presence of all contesting parties so that no subsequent claim may be made that there was incompetence or fraud.

When voting ends, no further ballots may be accepted. No ballot boxes may be brought from remote locations for counting unless they have remained sealed and have traveled under the constant surveillance of representatives of all contesting parties. The police cannot protrude into this process without invalidating the sanctity of the balloting process, all their cries of un-provoked public distrust notwithstanding.

In Malaysia there is a small election to take place tomorrow in a remote rural area. Just over 26,000 voters are registered, and the interest is such that all are keen to cast a vote. There is much interest, and the world watches to see how Malaysia matches its voting style with that of other democracies whose elections Malaysia's government roundly criticises and condemns.

Unfortunately, already the lists of registered voters is suspect. The names of voters on the lists (along with their identity card numbers) do not correspond with known residents of the area, giving rise to cries of foul play. The number of these phantoms runs into the thousands. Who is responsible? The election commission is responsible.

The registered voters arrive days early to inspect the lists for the presence of their name. Many who have voted in the area for years arrive to find that their names have mysteriously been removed. They are supporters of the new coalition opposing the unpopular party in power. Who is responsible? The election commission is responsible.

The national election commission of Malaysia has not prepared accurate registration rolls for the Lunas by-election. They recently gave prior assurance that the rolls throughout the country have been corrected. If it is found that this statement is not correct, it reflects very poorly on the potential for a democratic electoral process to occur in Malaysia. It contributes to the international disfavor now directed to things Malaysian.

The Lunas election must be stopped. No election should proceed in a democratic country when there are clearly questions regarding a correct preparation by the election commission itself. The commission is not ready. Until the commission has corrected the registration lists the election cannot take place.

The government may insist that the election must proceed, with guarantees of proper procedure regarding the casting of each and every vote cast. But there is no means for removing the taint in time. The opposition is entitled to an injunction against proceeding with the election until full assurance can be obtained that all preparations to conduct a fair and honest election are in place.

It is the judiciary which gives the necessary injunctive relief. But the judiciary in Malaysia has been the object of international censure. A judge recently gave injunctive relief to prevent a meeting of the Malaysian Bar on the subject of judicial reform. This is a dismal precedent.

A request for injunctive relief in the Lunas election thus becomes another test whether Malaysia is ready to join the family of developed and democratic nations. Malaysia is surrounded by neighbors who trust Malaysia to bargain in good faith, allowing extended time for Malaysia to make adjustments in the automotive manufacturing sector.

Many who watch wonder whether Malaysia is capable of dealing in good faith. The minister signing for Malaysia has family interests in the import and sale of automobiles. Will the tariffs be lowered as agreed? Most are cynical, and new car sales continue apace. In the matter of an internal oil royalty contract the Malaysian government demonstrated bad faith, intervening as a third party to illegally divert money from two independently contracting parties. No relief is sought in the courts because the courts are seen to act by direction of the prime minister's order, ignoring the hallowed precedents of Commonwealth law.

Basic to faith in international affairs is a confidence that democracy is defended domestically. How will Malaysia measure up? In spite of the dismal record, there is change in the air. A request for injunctive relief is a wetted finger in the wind.