Let’s face it - rhetoric flows out of politicians’ mouths like milk from a cow’s udders.
That’s why some media hacks jump at the chance to cover certain politicians – they’re good for a quote beyond the usual, mind-numbing balderdash.
Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz was renowned for her acid tongue. Tun Dr Lim Keng Yaik was notorious for his bawdiness (and his tendency to…spray) and Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, for his feistiness and drama. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is still known for his charm, charisma and ability to sell sand to an Arab.
And then there’s the elder statesman of Malaysian politics – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
His soundbites have become the stuff of legend, whether it’s accusing Jews of ruling the world by proxy, popularizing the term “flip-flop” or coming up with nifty slogans like “Look East”, “Malaysia Boleh” and “Vision 2020”.
It has to be admitted that even his more controversial statements, delivered in that famously knowing and somewhat cynical voice, tend to make one think and reconsider notions long held as gospel.
Recently, during a talk entitled “Asia and the 21st Century”, organised by Universiti Malaya’s Asia-Europe Institute, he spoke glowingly of authoritarian regimes like China’s and compared them unfavourably with the democratic systems, such as India’s.
His exact words were that India “made the mistake of being too democratic”. At a press conference later, he elaborated, saying that democracy can be a hindrance to progress because it makes people spend too much time politicking and added that China’s development was because “there’s not much politics”.
More interestingly, he identified the West’s focus on democracy, civil rights and individual freedoms – its decentralisation of power to citizens and civil society - as being the reasons behind its lack of productivity and current economic flaccidity.
One has to admit that Dr Mahathir does have a point. It’s definitely easier to control, prod, push and, if necessary, drag a country kicking and screaming towards advancement, modernisation and progress if one stifles dissent and does away with the necessity of having to deal with pesky citizens who demand to be allowed to decide their own fates and futures. His critics would argue that this was the exact style of leadership Tun himself practiced as he jet-propelled this young nation into the 21st century.
The problem with this line of thought is that it ignores one basic fact – absolute power corrupts absolutely. History is strewn with examples of totalitarian – the most extreme form of being authoritarian - regimes where the masses suffer amidst their leaders’ lives of opulence. This was true in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China and still is in Beloved Leader Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea.
It takes a big man – one could suggest that such a man has yet to be found – that can wield such power wisely and properly. Authoritarianism, with its insulation against criticism of any kind, often inevitably leads to cronyism, nepotism, despotism and every other kind of –ism in the book. Its lack of transparency also means that citizens often don’t even know what their governments – or should we say, masters? – are up to.
A democracy, while arguably less “efficient” and “productive”, has the checks and balances that guard against such abuse of power. Proper separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the courts, along with a free and fair media – beautifully described by Edmund Burke as the fourth estate of government – and viable opposition parties ensure that politicians’ hands don’t get too grubby or their actions too bloody.
It is undeniable that there are democracies in which people are still financially insecure and in some cases, literally starving to death. India – the world’s largest democracy - is proof enough of this. And at the same time, China is proving that its brand of governance doesn’t necessarily mean people have to live in squalor.
Still, it could be argued that India’s struggle and China’s triumph aren’t because of their leadership styles, but in spite of them. China’s experiment with democracy at local government level is an indication that the country is beginning to admit and appreciate the benefits of the ancient Greek ideology.
The assertion that democracy is the root cause behind the West’s decline is flawed. Yes, their trade unions are strong – sometimes to the point of holding governments to ransom with nationwide strikes and such. But the point is, they democratically represent and speak for the working-class, who, if left untended, would most likely be trampled by Big Business. The West’s increased costs of labour and of doing business are down to increasing standards – and costs - of living, a problem we are now seeing and one that will eventually bedevil China as well.
Dr Mahathir justified his viewpoint by saying most people “don’t understand the limits of democracy.” This isn’t a reason to do away with democracy, but one to strengthen it further with more awareness, education and institutional reforms.
After all, if we breed a nation of sheep, how are we ever going to cultivate another generation of leaders brave and brash enough to exercise their democratic rights, even if it means using freedom of speech to advocate totalitarianism?
