Mahathirism is a concept which advocates for the prime minister to be given dictatorial power and the right to distribute national resources according to the discretion of the prime minister to “save the country” or “advance the interest of the country.”
In the 80s and 90s, Mahathir ruled the country by saying that that he has to bypass the established processes and procedures in the country as well as elect his own people to important and strategic positions because if he follows the process and procedure and work with the people that he inherited from his predecessors, he will never be able to develop Malaysia by 2020.
Later on, he will also claim that he has no choice but to use the law and state apparatus to twist the arm of certain people or organizations, because if he doesn’t do it, they will sabotage his plans to develop the country by 2020.
Anwar, we can already see in his 11 months on the job, is a protege of Mahathir.
He is also putting his men like Zahid in important positions and hammering his political opponents like Muhyiddin because he is probably claiming that he also needs to bypass processes and procedures and act in a unilateral manner in order to "save the country.'
By now, I think we might need to accept that having a dictatorial leader might be something that we might just have to resign ourselves to.
In some cultures and amongst some people, dictators and authoritarianism might be the only way to govern the people and the nation.
If you look at our history, all the prime ministers who are successful in governing the country have wielded dictatorial power.
Razak literally ruled as a dictator for a couple of years after the 13 May period.
Mahathir was for all intent and purpose, a dictator, or what we euphemistically call an Authoritarian leader, especially during the second half of his first tenure.
Tunku's reign collapsed because he hesitated in wielding dictatorial powers, which led to the people becoming too unruly and the situation becoming so out of control that the 13 May riots occurred.
Pak Lah's reign also ended unceremoniously because he was perceived to be too weak to wield dictatorial power while Najib and Muhyiddin’s reign also was terminated because they were not successful in wielding dictatorial powers, although they tried to do it.
We don't have to be ashamed of being a people who are best ruled by dictators and authoritarian leaders. Why be ashamed of who we are? Just because the West doesn't like dictators, it doesn't mean that there is something wrong with dictators in and of itself.
Malaysians are also not the only people in this region that are best ruled by dictators and authoritarian leaders. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, who is widely acknowledged to be the greatest or one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, was also a dictator.
The Russians and the Chinese currently have a dictator governing them, but they look more content with their government than the people in countries like Canada or America, who are allergic to the concept of dictatorship.
If Anwar wants to be a dictator, which I personally believe he desires to be, I don't think we should cry out against the idea in a knee-jerk manner, simply because we wish to please the West, which decries the concept of dictatorships as an inherently evil concept.
The West might believe that such a thing as a "benevolent despot”, who rules with absolute power for the interest and welfare of the people, is a myth, but we in the East have traditionally been open to the possibility.
The late great Lee Kuan Yew is probably the best example of a "benevolent despot". The fact that such a leader as Lee Kuan Yew existed, requires us to not dismiss the virtue and value of a dictator, despot or authoritarian leader.
When we are posed with the question of whether should we support Anwar’s effort to be a dictator, rather than dismiss the idea cursorily, simply because we refuse to even give the concept of dictatorship the time of the day, perhaps we should indulge the proposition a little, and ask ourselves to investigate the matter further, and ponder whether Anwar can be a good dictator?
Tun Razak was widely acknowledged as a good dictator. Lee Kuan Yew too. Current leaders like Xi Jinping and Putin are also generally held by their population as good dictators.
There are bad dictators of course, like Muammar Gaddafi or Robert Mugabe, whose reign was widely decried, even by their own people, as insane, self-absorbed and out of control.
The answer to our question as to whether it is fitting for Anwar to be a dictator then, would really depend on whether we see him as being someone that is closer to Lee Kuan Yew or Mugabe.
If Anwar looks like he is going to be a dictator that is more similar to Lee Kuan Yew than Robert Mugabe, I for one, think that it might be good for us to support him as a dictator.
To be brutally honest, I don't really value our parliament. It is supposed to be a sacred temple of the federation, but to me, it is more like a zoo or a circus. I doubt if I am going to miss it very much if it is side-lined.
Rather than entertain the delusion that the future of the country is best preserved by the lot we have in parliament, I am more persuaded by the idea that the best interest of the people and the country might lie in finding a well-intentioned and capable dictator to govern us.
Let us be honest, this PN and PH feud that is destabilizing the country is never going to be settled electorally. Regardless of who wins an election, their reign is always going to be vulnerable and weak.
If this was the 90s or early 2000s, we might have the resources and vigour to withstand the sort of weakness and instability that we are grappling with.
In 2023 however, we have become more weary and depleted. If we keep getting pummeled by the impasse and instability that has been upon us for years if not decades, we might just have a few more years to go before we collapse or implode.
Considering that, I think it might be about time that we open ourselves to the idea of a dictatorship to resolve the impasse that we are in.
We should open ourselves up to it, because if we the people ourselves open up to the idea of dictatorship, the dictator that might emerge to govern us will likely do so with our consent, which will improve the chances that the said dictator is going to be more similar to Lee Kuan Yew than Idi Amin.
If we close ourselves to the idea, it will be our politicians who will be able to impose a dictator on us through their schemes, and if we end up having a dictator that they shoved down our throat through their schemes, we are going to have a dictator that is going to be more similar to Idi Amin than Lee Kuan Yew.
Nehru Sathiamoorthy was a columnist at FMT, a frequent contributor to the South China Morning Post, a mathematics teacher in the Klang Valley, and a seeker of the meaning of life. So far, there are three things that he holds to be unequivocally true. The first is that the purpose of life is to pursue happiness, the second is that you cannot be happy unless you carry your fair share of the world's weight and the third is that you can never underestimate your ability to take your own side.
TheRealNehruism is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact Newswav.
