The unexpurgated Mahathir

IN this age of soundbites, it is refreshing to meet a world statesman who is willing to engage you in a conversation with breathtaking candour. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee must have had a flavour of Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s sharp mind during his Malaysia visit.

In my experience as an interviewer, Mahathir ranks with Shimon Peres (Israel), Tariq Aziz (Iraq), Romano Prodi (EU) and Nelson Mandela (on a lucid day) as statesman who can discuss ideas without fearing that what they say before a TV camera might be cited as evidence against them.

‘‘You will be signing these agreements with India, including the one on railways, but cannot get into a partnership mode?’’ I ask.

Mahathir Mohamad sets aside all pointless politeness. Candour is his hallmark. ‘‘I think there is too much politics in a democratic society. (Mind you this is just when assembly election results in India are about to be announced). Simply because you can change governments, everybody wants to change governments. There is therefore no continuity: you have to start so many things all over again. In Malaysia we have changed governments, but policies remain the same because of the consensus stated in our party at the time when we became independent, so we are predictable,’’ Mahathir continues.

Also, he believes it is unfair to expect a government to deliver without a reasonable, guaranteed period of administration.
Just as the American president has a four-year fixed term, I ask.

In Mahathir Mohamad’s framework, four years is an insufficient term. A leader, who has to be carefully selected, must have at least 10 years before his policies begin to show the first signs of bearing fruits.

The basic thrust of Mahathir’s argument is that there is no development theology outsiders can impose on a country — its evolution depends on local conditions, resources and the quality of leadership, educated, cosmopolitan, but having the strength not to be swayed by foreign philosophies, development models, however well-packaged. Windows have to be kept open for all manners of influences, but the basic structure has to be your own.

I decide to provoke him.‘‘But we rather enjoy our democracy, changing three governments in as many years.’’

Mahathir laughs: ‘‘If you take pride in that democracy and no development, and not making progress, that is all right by me. Only the people will say, look, their country is being destroyed and smashed and that is democracy.’’

Are you suggesting that China is a better model?

‘‘Yes, China is a good model. It entails an authoritarian form of government but it has opened its economic system and things are moving much faster.’’ If they had liberal democracy, there would be no time for development. They would be fighting each other.

Mahathir was averse to naming Indonesia and the Philippines who have taken their bow before the World Bank and in front of the altar of liberal democracy. ‘‘They have democracy but their people are unemployed, and their people are suffering. That is the price of democracy. But I do not think that is good for Malaysia.’’

How can he stand so obstinately against liberal democracy? Surely, democracy must have played a role in western prosperity — United States, Europe?
When they first became rich — they were not so liberal. Now that they are powerful, they can afford to. But other countries are not so powerful. They cannot afford liberalism. It is going to destroy the fibre of their society — that in sum in is his argument.

These are uncompromising words coming from one of the world’s most strong-willed leaders, one who bucked the system in 1997 when the East Asian economic crisis gripped the region. Mahathir Mohamad was the only one who came out on top.

Democracy and freedom, I suggest, are conducive to a hundred flowers blooming — music, painting, cinema, architecture, science and technology — all good things flourish in a democratic framework.

Pat came Mahathir’s reply. Three things flourished before liberal democracy was even known. What he is saying is that Michael Angelo and Shakespeare were not creatures of liberal democracy. As for architecture, you have to see the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, world’s tallest building, and a magnificent work of engineering and architectural design. These grew out of Mahathir’s vision. Further, Putrajaya, the futuristic new administrative capital where Mahathir received Vajpayee is itself an imposing architectural achievement, both in scale and sweep. The high tech nature of this enterprise has to be seen to be believed. The prime minister himself cannot open doors without a smart card.

He accepts globalisation but on his terms. In the next few decades, he says, the world will be globalised. But contrary to what the West wants we shall have globalisation with regulation.

‘‘There is no reason why globalisation must be accompanied by total deregulation and there should be a totally borderless world. They wish to confine the borderlessness to money. I believe we have to have a borderless world for capital
and a borderless world for people. People in poor countries must have the option to migrate to the rich.’’ Is the West ready for that globalisation?

Where will India be in the next 25 years?
‘‘You will be busy with your politics, while China will have developed. You are two great powers in Asia. If you co-operate, you, the region and the world benefit. If you quarrel, you destroy yourselves and all around you.’’

What does he think of the NMD?
‘‘This arms merchant goes to one country and says — buy this, it will protect you. Otherwise, I will sell it to your enemy. So you buy it. He comes with another blueprint — an antidote to the weapon you have bought. ‘‘Unless you buy, I shall sell it to your enemy … this goes on and on.’’

Earlier Columns