MAHATHIR AND DEMOCRACIES

> > > MAHATHIR Mohammad of Malaysia has handsomely won his fifth term in > office. Already the democratic world's longest-serving ruler, he looks > good to go on forever.

> > Malaysians have reasons to be approving of him. He has on the whole > made good use of the legacy of stability and foundations of growth he > inherited from his predecessors. In his 18 years in power he has both > overhauled them and built on them fairly comprehensively. Accelerated > development has seen creation of a network of infrastructure, > export-driven industrialization, and improvement in entrepreneurial > skills and work ethics. He has campaigned against the injustices of > the international financial system. And he has imparted to his people > a self-confidence and sense of pride not common in the region.

> > Did he have to do that, though, at the cost of suppressing dissent, > quashing any potential challenge to his power, ensuring subservience > of major organs of the state to executive control? Is authoritarianism > still an admissible apology for progress in a Third World country?

> > Look at the other side of Mahathir's style of government. Following > outmanoeuvring of all competitors within the party, purging of the > judiciary and disciplining of the press and the non-government > activism in the '80s, he set about ruling the country by rigorous > enforcement of such laws as the Internal Security Act, the Sedition > Act, the Press and Publications Act and the Official Secrets Acts.

> > The first of these allows for detention without trial. It enables the > government to keep the opposition firmly in its place. The press law > lays down an inhibitory list of don'ts. It gives the government powers > to shut down a newspaper, withdraw its licence indefinitely and arrest > without warrant any person for committing any offence made under this > act. Newspapers have to apply every year for renewal of their licence. > And a constitutional amendment early in the decade ensured complete > impotence of the head of the state.

> > The consequence has been to produce an extraordinarily compliant > political society. Nary a whimper of protest issues from any corner of > the ruling party's well over two-thirds majority in the parliament. > This cabinet remains even more unquestioning. The opposition makes a > noise within limits, but even that doesn't get much heard.

> > Radio and television are of course government-run and are freely used > for partisan propaganda. The mainstream press, whether Malay, English, > Chinese or Tamil, is also unabashedly partisan. Its reporting of > opposition views, rallies and protests is minimal and selective.

> > Newspaper editors have been eased out. University teachers and civil > servants have had their careers cut short. Three supreme court judges > including the chief justice were once dismissed.

> > All of which may seem a bit familiar to us here. But there is more.

> > An example of the electoral process was provided by the state election > early in the year in Sabah. Complaints of profligate expenditure of > funds, brazen gerrymandering of the constituencies, abuse of the media > and recourse to bogus voting couldn't be credibly denied. They added > nothing to the integrity of the exercise. Close to 15,000 Indonesian > and Filipino immigrant workers and some others were said to have been > issued identity cards to vote for the ruling coalition, Barisan > Nasional (National Front), which even threatened that if it was not > elected to power the state was going to be neglected. For all that the > Front failed to get a majority of popular votes, though it bagged a > majority of seats.

> > The recent saga involving the former deputy prime minister, Mr Anwar > Ibrahim, has been played before the eyes of the world. The rift > between the prime minister and his deputy had occurred because of the > latter's refusal during the regional financial crisis to support a > bail-out of certain huge corporations owned or controlled by persons > close to the seat of power. It was felt that a collapse of these > corporations might also lead to a populist Anwar becoming a challenge > to the prime minister.

> > An earlier allegation of sexual misconduct which had been dismissed as > baseless after a police inquiry and called 'rubbish' by the prime > minister himself was dug out. A law which had already been repealed by > the lower house and was awaiting that fate in the upper house was > pressed into service and Anwar charged under it. Media trial then > began in full bloom even before court trial started. In addition to > public humiliation. Anwar was manhandled by the police chief while in > custody. And after a trial in which the prosecution witnesses had kept > contradicting themselves and the court had had to amend the charges, > expunge big chunks of evidence, and refuse testimony of at least 10 > defence witnesses, he was awarded a six-year sentence.

> > This, among a number of other things, once again points to one > inherent weakness of authoritarian rule: its inability to admit a > rival. This inevitably leads to the problem of inept or unready > succession when the time for succession is forced. There have been > some rare instances of authoritarianism doing good over a short spell; > but there is none in current history of its performing well over the > long haul.

> > It isn't just a question of succession. An authoritarian ruler even if > he is genuinely concerned to start with loses his touch as he goes > along. Power makes him less and less tolerant of dissent and absence > of feedback mechanisms more and more remote from the needs and > sentiments of the people. A vicious circle thus sets in. If man's > capacity for justice makes democracy possible, as Reinhold Niebuhr > famously said, his inclination for injustice makes democracy > necessary.

> > What would Mr Mahathir Mohammed have missed had he allowed his > government to be more subject to accountability, and transparency? > Economically he might have found it hard to carry through some of his > mammoth wasteful projects, such as the world's tallest 88-storey > Petronas Towers. But it is unlikely in the extreme that his eminently > worthwhile economic programmes would have encountered any disabling > hurdles.

> > Similarly, his political standing both within his party and in the > power stakes would, despite a more raucous opposition, especially from > the religious right, have in the end remained unchallenged. Any votes > he would have lost in an election because of a fairer poll and a freer > and more equal opportunity for the opposition might have been > compensated by the goodwill he would have gained because of that. Even > a net loss would have been temporary. It would have given the voter an > opportunity to compare the merits of the available options. Experience > has also repeatedly proved that in the longer run a high-handed police > force and a pliable judiciary do more harm than good, not just to > civic peace but also to the political stock of the rulers.

> > People want two things of their rulers above any other. They want them > to be competent and to be fair. These easily show. And they become a > part of the system if both vertical accountability, which is to the > people and horizontal accountability, which is to the other organs of > the state, are guaranteed.

> > The good that authoritarianism is supposed to do to economic growth, > law and order and general well-being of the people is exaggerated. The > example commonly cited is that of the so-called Asian Tigers of the > recent past. The superficial surmise overlooks the other factors that > often make an even greater contribution - factors like good > leadership, sound policies, and such advantages of objective > conditions as compactness and homogeneity of the population, as in > Singapore.

> > Bad leadership and unsound policies are not inherent features of > democracy. They spring from a corruption of it. The answer therefore > is not to seek to replace democracy with authoritarianism, or allow > one to degenerate into the other. It is to find ways to limit the > scope for democracy's corruption.

> > The choice is thus not between 'clean and mean' on one hand and > 'filthy and free' on the other. It is possible, and necessary, to work > for a third combination - of clean and free. Despots derive strength > from subduing rivals and critics. Democrats have to do that by wooing > and accommodating them.

> > Mahathir Mohammad, and a number of others elsewhere, have yet to learn that > lesson. BY Aziz Saddiqui -DAWN Pakistan