Politicians no longer have the luxury of time to deliver progress
TUN Abdul Taib Mahmud and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over the reins of government at state and national levels, respectively, in 1981.
The former was to go on as chief minister for 33 years while the latter returned briefly as prime minister in 2018 after retiring in 2003 with 22 years of leadership under his belt.
Both men are still with us today, the former now having a twoyear extension as head of state.
But the era they ushered in is bygone. It is hard to imagine any leader in Malaysia today chalking up decades at the helm. That may be for the good.
While it is not hard to argue that at certain stages of any state’s or nation’s development, a steady and stable leadership can make of a favourable difference, it is still true that power tends to corrupt the longer one remains in power.
It may be facile but, nevertheless, germane to consider that the issues we face today regarding public accountability of leaders and corruption have antecedents that started under the tenures of durable leaders.
But the counter-argument is that the conditions that such leaders provided of an environment conducive to positive development goals allowed for advances in human development indices which, cumulatively, have now made it harder, if not impossible, for durable paternalistic leaders to thrive today, even absent term limits.
Much of the world has been indoctrinated with the idea that “dictators” (even elected ones, as Dr Mahathir claimed he was)
equal all-round disaster.
Invariably, that may be the case but there are enough exceptions (sort of the political equivalent to the economic argument for deferred gratification) in our part of the world to disprove the idea.
A clear distinction to this “rule” is called for, though. South Korea, Taiwan and maybe Chile “graduated” to become full-fledged democracies today.
On the other hand, China seems determined under President Xi Jinping to counter such a trend. How this turns out will have major global implications.
Malaysia, as always, may be occupying a middle ground in this raging debate. Given our almost unrivalled social and particularly racial complexities, I suppose we do have to strike a path that suits only us.
And then, there is a country like the Philippines, which just elected the son of its last “dictator” (Ferdinand Marcos) as president. Does this mean the country is destined to carry on with its distinction as the region’s odd “man” out?
I recall first visiting the country where I cut my journalistic teeth, in 1984, as the Marcos “conjugal dictatorship” neared its end.
I was then a rookie reporter on a two-week workshop about “developmental journalism”. Perhaps not quite realising it, we were practising such a “genre” of journalism here.
Taib was busy expounding on his concept of “politics of development”, essentially subsuming almost everything else to “development” goals.
It did not stop an almighty political battle then brewing between nephew (Taib) and his predecessor and uncle, Tun Abdul
Rahman Ya’kub.
Taib survived the ensuing state election almost by the skin of his teeth.
But what mattered was that his uncle-rival was vanquished.
Other rather opportunistic rivals not defeated could and were won over in due time, so the “politics of development” only grew thence from strength to strength with each state election.
The incoming Philippine president has a historic opportunity to redeem his family’s and his nation’s political fortune, although he has only six years to prove his worth.
But then, he succeeds a president who was similarly elected because enough voters liked his idea of subsuming most things and interests to an overarching “development” imperative.
Ferdinand Marcos Jr will succeed if he can sustain this imperative beyond his single presidential term.