Father knows best, until the nation grows up

It is quite natural that members of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s  administration are anxious that former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s stinging criticism against Najib, which has made headlines since mid-August, may delegitimise the country’s leadership if Mahathir continues to air his vitriolic views about the current PM’s performance.

After all, Mahathir’s track record for unmaking prime ministers goes all the way back to the first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Mahathir’s fault-finding with Najib’s leadership raises important questions about the political process governing the prime minister’s tenure that need to be addressed in order for a robust democratic system to flourish.

At the outset, it must be acknowledged that the shadow of Mahathir’s presence on the political stage continues to loom large over the nation’s affairs although he stepped down as its fourth prime minister this month some 11 years ago in 2003.

His political acumen, sharp wit and strong personality have undeniably contributed to his longevity in public life, to which his critics would add a streak of ruthless efficiency.

Whatever the reasons for Mahathir’s influence, his effect on Najib’s government today exposes the effete quality of the country’s political governance, as seen in the murmurings among Najib’s lieutenants that an extended campaign by the doughty former prime minister spells big trouble.

An immediate concern for Najib is that Mahathir’s cantankerous mood would result in a rough time for Najib as the Umno president to maintain his support among the party’s grassroots in the run-up to its general assembly at end-November.

When Mahathir announced on his influential blog chedet.cc in mid-August that he was withdrawing his support of Najib’s administration for the love of his people and country, Umno’s divisional meetings were in full swing.

The timing of Mahathir’s attack sent a message to the Umno rank and file that if they shared his views, they should choose someone else to helm the nation, since whoever is the Umno president becomes the head of the government.

Of course, Mahathir has denied telling Najib to step down, but the upshot of the hammering that he has given to Najib’s image is that the nation’s wealth should be managed by someone else.

For Najib and his followers, then, everything is at stake, so a battle royale must ensue.

However, no one has taken on Mahathir head on, possibly for tactical reasons. Furthermore, there is a strong culture of showing respect to elder leaders, especially if the criticism is couched as a fatherly rebuke. It is also poor form to retort viciously, as it can be interpreted as an unbecoming show of lust to stay in power.

Interestingly, Mahathir’s criticism of Najib coincides with a period of heightened tension over the government’s use of the Sedition Act against a range of politicians, lawyers, academics and student activists, which has created a climate of fear in the country.

While this may keep a lid on criticism of Najib’s administration for now, opinion leaders like Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, a former deputy minister in his cabinet, have pointed out that the repression of free speech is an impediment to the successful development of democracy in the country.

More importantly, in the long run, it will have the tendency to exacerbate the erosion of support for the government because of the perception that it is stifling legitimate discussion of public interest issues.

What Najib’s current dilemma really highlights is that in Malaysia, the prime minister’s office can come under threat if a strong figure of Mahathir’s stature decides to call his number.

In a functioning democracy, the criticisms that Mahathir has made against Najib concerning economic and social policies and his handling of political problems, would be robustly debated in parliament or by commissions of inquiry that are expressly established to investigate particular issues of national importance.

Such forums would be equipped with the right checks and balances to ensure that the national interest is served by a thorough and impartial inquiry.

Undoubtedly, decades of paternalistic rule under a strong federal government that created an aura of being infallible have undermined the role of countervailing institutions in checking the excessive concentration of power in the executive.

Mahathir’s pre-eminent role in consolidating that power is already well-known.

It will take leadership, courage and perseverance to rebuild the institutions that form the foundations of the nation’s democracy. For this work, the culture of ethical conduct, respect for democratic principles, a sense of justice and a commitment to the greater good are indispensable.

When these ideas are sufficiently rooted in the national consciousness, it would be timely to establish ideas like a fixed tenure for the prime minister, along with a re-examination of the communal concepts that block the development of national unity.

The task ahead for all stakeholders in the nation’s future to come together with a sense of common purpose is becoming more compelling with each crisis facing the nation.

Unfortunately for Najib, these safeguards against the will of a single powerful individual will not be sufficiently functional at a time when he could perhaps have turned to them.

Had he been able to prevail against the right wing elements in his party when he proposed to liberalise the government after coming into power, the prospects of a different outcome today would have been that much stronger.

As things stand, what happens now in the national power equation will definitely rivet our attention, although the spectacle may not be at all pretty. – October 6, 2014.

* R.B. Bhattacharjee is associate editor at the Edge.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.