Intellectual Discourse, 27:2 (2019) 475–505

Copyright © IIUM Press

ISSN 0128-4878 (Print); ISSN 2289-5639 (Online)

Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun

Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power,
Control, Stability and Defence

Suleyman Temiz*
Arshad Islam**

“You have to lead. You should be sensitive to what your

followers think. But if you do exactly what they want,
you’re not a leader.”
Mahathir Mohamad (Asiaweek, May 9, 1997, p. 39)

Abstract: Prior to his renewed incumbency, as the fourth Prime Minister of

Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad (b. 1925) was able to remain in power for a
more prolonged period compared to his predecessors. He was actively involved
in galvanizing political action immediately after the independence of Malaysia
and did not abandon active politics until his 2003 resignation. Under Mahathir’s
leadership and guidance, Malaysia made remarkable economic and political
progress. He oversaw many innovations in the fledgling democracy and was
able to develop the country due to his exceptional leadership qualities. His style
and attitude towards engaging with problems, particularly his stance during the
Asian Monetary Crisis in 1997, was highly criticized by some, and labelled as
dictatorial. This stigma did not detract him from the path he considered right
for Malaysia, and under his leadership he garnered worldwide appreciation for
his national efforts and success in overcoming the economic crisis. Mahathir
is undeniably an excellent case study as a prime minister, as well as a highly

*Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International

Relation, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Igdir University,
Turkey. Email: [email protected]
**Associate Professor, Department of History and Civilization, Kulliyyah
of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences, International Islamic
University Malaysia. Email: [email protected]
476 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

productive person. He contributed to a better understanding of modern

Malaysia and his own tenure as PM in a series of books and articles. One of
the significant aspects of his political heritage is his influential charisma and
leadership. In all of his undertakings he has attracted both passionate support
and hatred from friends and foes, but his political footsteps have always been
certain and directed toward Malaysia’s national wellbeing. Mahathir is a
politician with sharp views on many issues and he was profoundly brave in
verbalising them in the public arena, within Malaysia and internationally. His
clear posture and speeches without fear made him a world-embracing political
personality. This descriptive research study adopts a qualitative approach to
analyse historical information, documents, memoirs and articles, and books to
better understand the leadership of Mahathir.

Keywords: Mahathir, Charisma, Leadership, Malaysia, National development.

Abstrak: Sebelum beliau memperbaharui jawatan yang disandang, Bekas

Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang ke-empat, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (b.
1925) merupakan Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang paling lama berkhidmat
berbanding Perdana Menteri terdahulu. Beliau terlibat dalam politik Malaysia
dengan aktif sejurus Malaysia mencapai kemerdekaan pada tahun 1957
sehingga beliau telah meletak jawatan tersebut pada tahun 2003. Dibawah
kepimpinan dan bimbingan beliau, Malaysia menikmati kemajuan ekonomi
dan politik yang progresif. Beliau membawa banyak inovasi kepada demokrasi
yang masih baru dan membangunkan negara kerana kualiti kepimpinannya
yang luar biasa. Sikap dan gaya kepimpinan beliau menyelesaikan masalah
negara boleh dilihat terutamanya semasa Krisis Kewangan Asia pada tahun
1997. Krisis ini sangat dikritik oleh beberapa pihak dan beliau dilabel sebagai
diktator. Walaubagaimanapun, stigma tersebut tidak mengalih perhatian beliau
dari jalan yang dianggap betul untuk Malaysia. Dibawah pimpinannya, beliau
mendapat penghargaan dari seluruh dunia kerana usaha dan kejayaannya dalam
mengatasi krisis ekonomi tersebut. Tun Dr Mahathir tidak dapat dinafikan
subjek kajian kes yang sangat terbaik sebagai seorang Perdana Menteri dan
juga individu yang sangat produktif. Dalam beberapa siri buku dan artikel yang
diterbitkan, beliau telah menyumbangkan kepada pemahaman yang lebih baik
tentang Malaysia moden. Salah satu aspek penting dalam warisan politik beliau
ialah pengaruh berkarisma dan kepimpinan. Semua usaha-usaha beliau telah
menarik banyak sokongan dan juga membina sifat kebencian dari pihak musuh
pada masa yang sama. Jejak politik beliau adalah selalu pasti dan terarah
kepada kesejahteraan negara Malaysia. Tun Dr Mahathir merupakan ahli
politik yang mempunyai pandangan yang tajam mengenai beberapa isu dan
beliau sangat berani dalam mengutarakannya dalam arena awam, di Malaysia
dan antarabangsa. Sikap dan ucapannya yang jelas tanpa rasa takut menjadikan
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 477

beliau personaliti politik yang dikenali dunia. Kajian penyelidikan deskriptif

ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif untuk menganalisis maklumat sejarah,
dokumen, artikel, memoir, dan buku untuk lebih memahami kepimpinan
Mahathir.

Kata Kunci: Mahathir, Karisma, Kepimpinan, Malaysia, Pembangunan

Nasional

Introduction
‘Politics’ is derived from Greeks roots to mean ‘task of state’. It is useful
to clarify the position of leadership in the political context, as its imprint
can be seen everywhere in this framework. While leadership must exist
in politics, political leadership per se is a more comprehensive and
inclusive field. History teaches how humanity has achieved progress by
following leaders with political visions, and leadership is always political
(Awamleh & Gardner, 1999). Indeed, leadership predates the creation
of political institutions, and cannot wait upon them for entitlement
(Weaver, 1991, p. 158); political leadership is the very origin of politics
(Helms, 2012, p. 8). According to Blondel, it seems feasible to describe
political control as the authority executed by one or a few people to the
members of a nation towards movements (1987, p. 8). Concordantly,
a political leader is a leader who correlates with followers, organising
and preparing them to be ready for motion. Political leadership emerges
from the connection between directed-managed relationships, which
are generally accepted by the people every time in the past and future.
Especially in democratic countries, such as Malaysia, political actors
who want to manage the country notify the populace of their candidacy
before elections. Accounting to Lord and Maher, one must remember
that in conflicts of leadership there is both a leader, or leaders, and a
follower, or followers, and cognition happens between both leaders and
followers (1990, p. 3). If there is a leader somewhere, there must be
followers (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999). George and Brief (1992,
p. 310) elucidate that leaders who feel zealous, passionate and vigorous
themselves are likely to equally invigorate their followers, while
leaders who suffer anxiety and antagonism are likely to pessimistically
stimulate their supporters. Schmidt argues that it is not adequate for a
leader to generate an image; the genuine trial of leaders is whether they
478 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

can convey their vision and scheme to supporters, communicating it to

them clearly, and rallying their support (2007, p. 993).
If a leader is perceived as a role model, followers are apt to
internalize the leader’s vision and purpose, mission, and/or inherent
values into their self-concepts (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993, p. 577).
Intrinsically, leaders’ action or ineffectiveness can have multiple effects
on followers and others. Although leaders usually manage activities,
this does not mean that all initiative comes from them. At the same
time, followers have the capacity for making considerable additions to
accomplished leadership. At every level in any organization, leaders are
called upon to be responsive, as are followers (Hollander, 1992).
Moreover, the impact of leadership performance is normally
précised by the proper execution of target-linked problem resolutions
in related systems (Fleishman, Zaccaro, & Mumford, 1991). Concrete
or intangible skills are the most indelibly associated features of
leaders’ appearance and competence (Bass, 1985, p. 274). Effective
leadership might need some problem-solving capability, just as creative
achievement in the arts and sciences might require heightened cogency
(Mumford & Connelly, 1991, p. 290).
Charismatic Political Leadership
Some leaders are exceptional in their incredible influence on their
supporters and wider social contexts, with particular leadership styles
called charismatic, visionary, transformational, and inspirational, which
are bound to inspire cohorts in ways that are more and superior in their
diverse qualities (Yukl & Fleet, 1982). Charismatic leadership is the
most common paradigm to understand exceptional political leaders.
Magnetic leadership qualities are deliberated in different disciplines,
for example history, management, political science, psychology,
and sociology, to classify leaders who challenge modest groupings
with available leadership constructs (Beyer, 2000). Weber’s (1047)
charismatic leader explanation creates a sophisticated, mystical model
of personally magnetic and talented individuals (Avolio & Yammarino,
1990, p. 193).
Trice and Beyer (1986) have acknowledged that charismatic
leadership can manifest in astonishing forms and roles during crises,
offering a vital explanation and presenting decisive strength. Contrary
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 479

to the abovementioned principles, in Butterfield’s understanding,

charismatic leadership is neither a willingly visible marvel nor one
that could be simply measured. The deficiency of a steady or broadly
accredited classification of charisma exacerbates the problem of gauging
magnetic leadership behaviour. It is similarly challenging that numerous
prevalent descriptions of charm could not be interpreted into effective
procedures (Butterfield, 1972). According to Bass (1985), charismatic
leadership signifies one of the main concepts of the revolutionary,
energetic formula of leadership. Bettin and Kennedy (1990, p. 227)
identified three features of charismatic leadership: the impact of
decision style, outcome, and observer characteristics. Characteristics of
charismatic leadership are signalled by a clustering of behaviours, thus
attributes of charismatic leadership are a matter of appraisal. Explication
of the probability that a specific person will ostensibly be a charismatic
leader is related to some fascinating behaviours or qualities accredited
to him or her, the passion of a distinct behaviour, and the significance of
the behaviour to the existing conditions (Deluga, 1997).
Viewers infer hazardous behaviour as a mark that leaders are
devoted to satisfying their notions. This position strengthens followers’
confidence in the leader and trust in unusual tactics. Good leader’s
actions inspire positive reactions in followers. Charismatic leadership
comprises a set of special features that other people perceive to be
astonishing (Conger, 1989). A critical mass of people is drawn to
leaders who demonstrate such dynamic potentials, ability, and ability
to generate enthusiasm. People might be in admiration of leaders who
possess such attributes and are very much driven and stimulated by
them. These features, which cause a delicate relation to the leader,
are considered the stuff of charisma. One of the most vital roles in
the leadership is strong decision-making capability. This attribute of
charismatic leadership gives the leader the authority to make decisions,
validate proficiency, and demonstrate firmness in circumstances that
have indeterminate consequences (Puffer, 1990). According to House
and Howell, there is a very strong and deep connection between
personality traits and charismatic leadership (1992, p. 82). If we look
at Malay political history, we can easily see that Tunku Abdul Rahman
(1903-90) and Mahathir are very good examples of charismatic leaders.
This paper explores the charismatic political leadership of Mahathir in
Malaysia.
480 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

Heredity - Family Value

The notion of Malay leadership has roots in early history as well as
cultural practises that played an important role in influencing many of
the elements of perceptual knowledge (Shome, 2002, p. 13). Traditional
cultures believed that great leaders are born, not made. More modern
analyses posit the potential to develop leadership skills, but some
authors still consider leaders’ traits to be inherited and unchangeable
(Zaccaro, 2007, p. 6). When it became clear that some traits could
be learned, analysts started to investigate behaviours and later into
situational factors that affect leadership effectiveness, and outcomes
show that any effect of traits on leadership behaviours depend on the
contextual situation in which leadership occurs (Funder, 1991, p. 33).
Mahathir’s style was not archetypally Malay; while approving of
conservative Asian values such as family, consensus, and deference, his
own personal political style was confrontational and, in a sense, Western
(Sheridan, 1995, p. 215). According to Lucian Pye, Asian leaders in
general tend to cling to power. Objectively, continuity of leadership –
up to a point – may be advantageous to good governance, as Mahathir
himself does not neglect to point out. “Asian” leaders are implicitly
“traditional” in some senses, and leadership implies status but does
not involve heavy responsibilities (Mohamed, 1985, p. 225). Mahathir
himself notes the role of his education, culture, and environment in
his leadership. For him, the most important factor in his life was the
education he received from his family. His father was a very disciplined
and serious person who educated his children in this way. As Mahathir
reminisced:
“My father was a strict disciplinarian and was not much
liked by his students. He was equally strict at home. Because
he demanded that we study hard. My brothers, sisters and I
lived in awe of my father, even though he never laid a hand
on us. I was the luckiest one because my father gave me the
highest level of education. That is why I was better off than
all my siblings. I was closer to my mother than to my father,
and as a result, she shaped my personality more. She taught
me very clearly that if I wanted something, I had to work for
it.” (Mohamad, 2011, p. 12).

According to Mahathir, he owes everything to his mother (The

Star, 2019). When he became Deputy PM and PM, according to his
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 481

statements, under no circumstances did he move any members of his

staff for poor performance, as was the normal custom. As an alternative,
he made efforts to carry out tasks that he expected them to achieve,
leading by example, and thus winning their dedication. Consequently,
they raised their skill to advance their performance to the satisfaction
of their superiors. He strongly believes that it is the duty of a leader to
work with the team to achieve the optimum from them (Mohamad, 2011,
pp. 12-23). This is a very elementary level of charismatic leadership
behaviour, driven by a vision, and nurtured by education. Mahathir
always wanted to be a leader, and his life and experiences strengthened
this wish.
“I wanted to be a leader so that I could get this done. At
school, my schoolmates had readily accepted me in this role,
but it’s not acceptable for orderlies. I decided that the only
way I could get them to listen to my ideas and opinions was to
improve my credentials…. I had never seriously considered
medicine and it was clearly not my first choice, but fate had
played its hand. I was appreciating its intervention greatly
in later years, as medicine would prove to be a strangely
appropriate education for a political career. My medical
training, for example, came in useful when tackling the
problems of administration. Running a country is not just
about debating in parliament or making laws, but also about
curing social, economic, and political diseases. At least
in principle, the treatment resembles medical procedures
(Mohamad, 2011, p. 127).

According to Mahathir’s background we can see that his family

education was the most affective on his character and development.
Significantly, even in his resignation he acknowledged his debt to his
mother. Mahathir updated and developed his leadership according to a
mindset that believes that the greater the prerogatives, the more effective
the leader (Shome, 2002, p. 128).
A Banned Book Writer and Charisma
Mahathir’s political career commenced with anti-Japanese protests in
Malaya, against confirming the residency of non-Malays as citizens
of the Malayan Union (Wain, 2009, p. 9). Subsequently, he advocated
affirmative action to support Malay admissions to medical institutions
in Singapore. During his student life he used to write for The Sunday
482 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

Times (currently The Straits Times) under the nom de plume “C.H.E.
Det”, strongly supporting Malay rights and voicing their problems.
After graduation, he started his career as a medical officer at Alor Setar
General Hospital. He was among the earliest members who joined
UMNO just after its formation in 1946. He played a dynamic and
significant role in UMNO and won the parliamentary seat for Kota Setar
Selatan in 1964 (Wain, 2009, p. 19).
Despite his significance in the party, Mahathir did not want to be a
nominee for the 1959 general election, because of his contrary political
views with Prime Minister (PM) Tunku Abdul Rahman. After Malayan
independence, relationships between the two had been frosty since
Mahathir began to criticize Tunku’s pact of keeping the British and
Commonwealth Forces in Malaya during the Emergency. Despite his
young age, Mahathir raised a serious challenge to Tunku’s leadership
by divulging his charismatic personality and revealing his fearless side,
being entirely opposite to Tunku Abdul Rahman.
At another occasion, Tunku rejected Mahathir’s draft plan for
regulating UMNO’s members by requiring minimum qualifications.
Since Mahathir’s dynamic, thoughtful, and amazing ideas upset the
status quo, they served to delay his access to Malay politics, thus he
realised that it was not an opportune time for him to enter politics. This
adverse delay did not continue long (Wain, 2009, pp. 18-19). In the
subsequent general election in 1964 he advertised his candidacy as
a nationalist doctor, and as a result was elected as a Member of the
Federal Parliament for the Alor Setar-based seat of Kota Setar Selatan
(Lee, 1996).
Tunku Abdul Rahman’s concerns of facing an overall Chinese
majority if Malaya joined with Singapore could be allayed if the
non-Chinese peoples of the Borneo territories were brought into the
equation, but it was not enough to solve the nationality equation (Jones,
2002, p. 63). Thus, Singapore was separated from the Federation of
Malaysia in Mahathir’s first year as parliamentarian. Mahathir lost his
parliamentary seat in the 1969 general election despite his significance
as an educated physician. Concurrently, his personal character and
leadership attitude were disliked by the Tunku, because his charismatic
sides were manifested in strong opposition to the incumbent regime
(White, 2004, p. 183).
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 483

The 1969 general election was dominated by the issue of ethnic

relations and state structure. Thus, the May 1969 general election
crusade was overflowing with deliberate phrases concerning a communal
outlook, and accusations by the political parties. Vulnerable topics like
culture, education, language, and Malay special rights were heatedly
debated and argued with much animosity. As a result, racial tensions
increased and communal relations deteriorated, undermining the
country’s political solidarity. Finally, Malaysia fell into an importunate
political catastrophe (Mutalib, 1990, pp. 52-3). The 1969 election
was fought in an atmosphere of suspicion between the two principal
groups, the Malays and the Chinese. The surprising losses of the ruling
Coalition enabled opposition parties to carve their way into Parliament
in substantive numbers. This shocking result and opposition victory
stoked communal ferocity in the May 13th riots of 1969 (Mutalib, 1990,
pp. 53-4; Stuart, 1970, p. 320).
The upshot of the communal violence was the up surging demands
for the indigenous Malays (bumiputra); however, Mahathir’s conjecture
was that communal relations might be affected in terms of ethnic enmity
and social anarchy. Thus, he started openly criticizing the government,
writing an open letter to Tunku accusing him of lacking assistance to
the Malays. Obviously, this letter had a wide impact to the government
policies. Hence, Mahathir called for Abdul Rahman’s resignation
(Wain, 2009, p. 26). This unwanted retort was punished by the Tunku,
who orchestrated the dismissal of Mahathir from the UMNO Supreme
Council and his expulsion from the organisation (Hooker, 2003, p. 232).
Abdul Rahman was feeling extremely annoyed with him, and had to be
persuaded not to have him arrested (Wain, 2009, p. 28).
While Mahathir was consigned to a hostile political wilderness, he
expressed his thoughts on the predicament in ‘The Malay Dilemma’, in
which he resonated his opinions and vision for the Malays (Wain, 2009,
pp. 29-30). Due to Mahathir’s daring stand and frank criticism of the
government, the book was officially banned (and was only permitted
when he became PM in 1981). Despite being the author of an outlawed
book, he worked his way up to obtain the positions of minister and
then deputy PM, representing a unique case in Malaysian politics
(Morais, 1982, p. 26). According to Milne and Mauzy, Mahathir’s fierce
and combative hostilities were one of the main reasons of Tunku’s
484 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

deteriorating fame and his ensuing resignation as PM in 1970 (1999, p.

25). During that period Mahathir criticised Tunku’s feeble leadership:
“As the 1969 general election approaches, Tunku’s easy-
going policies became of great concern, not just to me but to
other young Malays. They subjected him to unprecedented
questioning, which was something that he was ill-suited to
handle. The Tunku seemed content to hand Malays civil
service jobs instead of getting them actively involved in the
economy. Moreover, considering how the British had tried
to impose the Malayan Union on us, I thought the Tunku’s
subsequent pro-British stand was unacceptable. In short,
in the Malay interest, I thought it was time for a change in
Malay leadership” (Mohamad, 2011, p. 237).

Conspicuousness of His Leadership

UMNO was essentially constituted to represent the Malay national
interest, and was led by Malay aristocrats, given the absence of a
substantive Malay middle class or religious leaders with extraordinary
charismatic powers. The founder of UMNO, Dato Onn Jaafar (1895-
1962), and his successor, the Tunku, were both products of the traditional
elite (Milne & Mauzy, 1999, p. 14). While Mahathir never had friendly
relations with Tunku, he realised upon his return to the party that Tun
Razak Hussein (1922-76) had an energetic and pleasant personality, and
he declared that Razak was a person he could work with. In the changing
political scenario of Malaysia Tunku had to step down in 1970 and was
succeeded by Tun Razak. He welcomed Mahathir’s return in the UMNO
and subsequently appointed him as a senator, and he was soon elected
as a member of the UMNO Supreme Council in 1973 (Morais, 1982,
p. 27). He took a keen interest in state affairs and displayed impressive
competence, which ensured his rapid ascent through the political
hierarchy under the leadership of Tun Razak, and he became a member
of the University Malaya Council and Chairman of the University
Kebangsaan Malaysia. In 1974, he won the uncontested election of MP
for Kubang Pasu and was subsequently appointed Minister of Education
(Belle, 2015, pp. 331-335). After strengthening his position in the party,
he became one of the nominees for three vice-presidencies in 1975.
This party election was crucial for the future leadership of UMNO, for
both Tun Razak and his deputy Hussein Onn (1922-90). The successful
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 485

candidates were Ghafar Baba (1925-2006), Mahathir Mohamed, and

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (b.1937) (Hamzah, 1990).
Soon the leadership of UMNO and the premiership of Malaysia
passed into the hands of Tun Hussein Onn, because of the sudden death
of Tun Razak in 1976. After much deliberation, Tun Hussein Onn
appointed Mahathir as Deputy PM, which indicated that the latter was
the likely successor as PM (Milne & Mauzy, 1999, pp. 27-28). However,
Tun Hussein was a watchful leader who did not accept all of Mahathir’s
frank and persuasive political proposals. The bond between Hussein and
Mahathir was relatively distant, and Mahathir’s rivals Ghazali Shafei
and Razaleigh Hamzah became Hussein’s close allies within the party,
enabling them to contain Mahathir’s influence in the party and over
Tun Hussein. These reactive efforts acknowledge the charisma and
leadership quality of Mahathir, who was clearly identified as the main
obstacle to those who coveted power for themselves. Nevertheless,
when Tun Hussein’s ill health prevented him from continuing as PM
in 1981, he supported Mahathir as his successor, in the national interest
(Wain, 2009, pp. 38-40).
Mahathir noted that his ascent to leadership of the country was not
foreseeable in his earlier years, and he noted the role of good fortune.
More prosaically, above the political tumult of everyday politics,
Mahathir had sympathisers behind the scenes and in the upper echelons
of the traditional Malay elite, who recognised his vision for the national
interest. Additionally, when Mahathir faced numerous bureaucratic
obstructions and political hurdles, his qualities of perseverance and a
keen intellect enabled him to overcome them. Because of these abilities,
it can be concluded that no one strong enough and tough enough had
emerged to challenge Mahathir during his premiership because of his
own baptism of fire in Malay politics (Thomas & Faruqi, 1987, p. 69).
A large number of people felt that his political rehabilitation was
proceeding too quickly and that his rise through the party ranks was
exceptional. As a member of cabinet, he was at the very centre of
decision-making in the Malaysian system of government (Mohamad,
2011, p. 284). After this, Mahathir had to find a place to introduce
his ideas for national development. He always employed what he
later discovered was called “lateral thinking”, if he could not achieve
something in one way, he would try another, moving sideways instead
486 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

of seeking to bulldoze his way via a frontal assault. Consequently, he

almost always succeeded in finding some way of doing the things that
he wanted (Mohamad, 2011, p. 253).
Cue Signal to Transformation
At the age of 56 years, Mahathir was sworn in as PM on 16th July 1981.
His initial task was to set free 21 prisoners held in custody under the
Internal Security Act (Wain, 2009, p. 28). Contrary to his rapid ascent,
Mahathir did not set about an abrupt campaign of political reform. He
cautiously moved in his early years in office, strengthening his control
over the party and working hard for the success of UMNO in the 1982
general election (Sankaran & Adnan, 1988, pp. 18-20). After taking
the reins of government he encountered several challenges, including
the ordeal of the constitutional status of monarchy. Mahathir started to
work on identifying the legitimate role of sovereigns, which was a very
difficult and risky task. The objective was clearly to modernise Malay
governance, which entailed ipso facto removing elements of effective
political power and authority from the traditional elites, who were and
are respected by the Malay masses and who play an important role in
national unity and stability.
The traditional elites had protected the Malays from some
aspects of British colonialism, and subsequently rallied the nation
against Communist insurgency, thus revolutionary political reform
was most unwelcome in the fledgling state. This sensitive task was
particularly difficult for Mahathir as a technocratic professional from
the emerging middle class, with no direct stake in the traditional feudal
model. Conversely, Tunku was a prince and Tun Razak came from a
distinguished family of administrators. Tun Hussein belonged to the
privileged family of Johor, and heading government administration was
a family tradition for him. Mahathir had none of this heritage, so any
attempts at political reform had to be particularly sensitive. At the same
time, he energetically and diligently took on the difficult task, displaying
his leadership capability. He administered a number of changes to the
Constitution, notably ‘The Constitution Amendment Act A566 of 1983’,
which restricted the role of Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the State Rulers.
Initially, Mahathir attempted to curtail the authority wielded by the new
Agong over the government by tabling constitutional amendments
compelling the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to give royal assent to any bill
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 487

passed by Parliament within 15 days. This entailed the assumption of

supreme executive power by the PM,  such as accruing to that office
(from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) the authority to declare a state of
emergency (Hickling & Wishart, 1988-1989). 
The constitutional model of Malaya upon independence was a
continuation of the ancient tradition of local sultans reformulated as a
British-style constitutional monarchy. In the British system, numerous
aspects of executive power nominally held by the Crown (i.e. the
monarch), such as supreme authority in matters of policing and defence,
are in effect wielded by the Prime Minister, thus subject to some measure
of democratic oversight due to the nature of the Parliamentary system.
These subtle nuances were not clear in Malaysia prior to the 1980s.
In principle, the present Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ahmad Shah
(1930-2019) of Pahang, initially consented to Mahathir’s modernisations
but vacillated after reading the documents, and he and the other sultans
sought to avoid becoming redundant relics, holding their authority to be
a sacred trust. Consequently, with the support of the sultans, the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong refused to give royal assent to the said amendments,
which had by then been passed by both Houses of Parliament (Milne &
Mauzy, 1999, p. 32). This represented a constitutional crisis that was
only mediated with the good will of both the Agong and Mahathir (Lee,
1996, p. 31).
While Mahathir’s political reforms were thus in essence an attempt
to Westernise Malaysian constitutional arrangements by bringing
governance in-line with British democratic standards, he was keen
to avoid the hegemony of Western powers, especially Britain. His
patriotism remained rooted in the anti-colonial fervour of his formative
years, and he could be stirred up to anti-British actions if they pressed
his buttons. When he became PM in 1981, in order to fulfil a target of
the New Economic Policy (NEP), British plantations were compulsorily
purchased to repatriate a stock of land and capital for the Bumiputra.
As a result, Guthries, one of the prominent plantation holdings, was
acquired by the government agency Permodalan Nasional Berhad and
was nationalised. The takeover on the London Stock Exchange was legal,
but as expected, Guthries attempted to obfuscate the nationalisation,
and they connived with the British government to claim that the usual
standard notice had not been given, and the London Stock Exchange
rules were changed to support their cause. This takeover process
488 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

also coincided with Britain raising tuition fees for overseas students
attending tertiary institutions, affecting close to 13,000 Malaysians,
which would clearly result in hampering Malaysia’s development. As
can be understood, Mahathir reacted intensely and launched a boycott
campaign called “Buy British Last”. This problem was solved in April
1983, partly as a result of diplomacy with Margaret Thatcher (1925-
2013), who got on well with Mahathir, and who did not want Britain’s
historic ties (and interests) in Malaya to be severed. Clearly at this
juncture they realised that Mahathir could not be bullied, and they were
perplexed by the presence of a strong leader (Milne & Mauzy, 1999, pp.
139-140). During the whole process, he exhibited a role as a “visionary
leader” of a developed Malaysia (Chio, 2005), and was consequently
labelled an “Ultra Malay” due to his patriotic policies and political
positions (Khoo, 1995).
By the mid-1990’s Mahathir’s government had embarked on an
extensive programme of economic reform, including the privatization
of airlines, utilities, and telecommunication companies, representing
around 50 entities (Milne & Mauzy, 1999, p. 57). The astute reader
will note that this is generally an entailment of IMF financial assistance
by which multinational corporations gain a windfall of cheaply priced
public assets, of the very type Mahathir sought to avoid, but these
autonomous reforms were premised on Malaysian private ownership
of such assets, and the PM’s resistance to foreign expropriation of such
resources in the face of the 1997-1998 crisis formed the crux of Western
hostility to his economic policy (as discussed later). His exceptional
problem-solving capability showed itself in responsiveness to public
needs and he incrementally found solutions. During Mahathir’s strong
governance, individuals were given more space to express their minds
without distress, but nationalist views in concurrence of preserving the
supremacy of Malay rights were also permitted to prevail, and peaceful
coherent dialogue of matters considered subtle, like race and belief
(Khoo, 2011, p. 200).
Coincident with Mahathir’s premiership, Malaysia witnessed the
signs of Islamic resurgence among the Malays. At that time, Muslim
population in Malaysia were becoming more sensitive about religion
and seemed to be drifting in a more socially conservative direction.
Characteristically, Mahathir could not be indifferent to this situation.
During the 1970s, PAS and UMNO formed a coalition government by
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 489

making a progressively Islamist community under the leadership of

Yusof bin Abdullah, also known as Yusof Rawa (1923-2000). Mahathir
took a positive stance to boost up the Islamic teaching by setting up
Islamic institutions like the famous International Islamic University of
Malaysia, to uphold Islamic and scientific education under government
control, modernizing while resisting colonial and neo-colonial
ideologies and control. One of Mahathir’s most able lieutenants in
this political programme was Anwar Ibrahim (b. 1947), the Malaysian
Islamic Youth Movement’s leader (ABIM). Mahathir identified Anwar’s
own charismatic leadership qualities that could in future benefit UMNO
and Malaysia in general (Milne & Mauzy, 1999, pp. 80-89). Mahathir
had handpicked and personally groomed Anwar and declared him to be
his successor on several occasions (Shome, 2002, p. 151).
Mahathir established a series of large infrastructure projects during
his tenure. Under his leadership, the Multimedia Super Corridor was
created south of Kuala Lumpur, a local version of Silicon Valley,
planned to advance national IT and communications industries, but this
plan did not meet with success for industrial reasons. His other projects,
Putrajaya, was more successful as one of the most prestigious and finely
decorated administrative centres in Southeast Asia. He managed to
set up a Formula One Grand Prix in Sepang, as well as the massive
investment project of the Bakun Dam in Sarawak, a hydro-electric
project to address energy problems in West Malaysia via the South
China Sea, but this project was terminated due to the Asian financial
crisis in 1997-1998 (Wain, 2009, pp. 185-189). Mahathir amazingly
dashed into his projects like a force of nature, all the while fulfilling
his conventional responsibilities as PM and head of UMNO, and
significantly advancing the deprived and disadvantaged condition of the
Malays beyond recognition while fostering harmony among Malaysia’s
communities (Wain, 2009, p. 53).
After assuming office Mahathir decided to review and modify
the tradition of the country’s foreign policy. For him, Malaysian
people should disregard ideological differences and should be sincere
to everybody. He started this task within ASEAN, establishing and
strengthening relationships with other member states, promoting
cooperation and collaboration with neighbouring states. Before starting
his heavy economic process, Mahathir wanted to avoid any potential
for conflicts with other ASEAN states, which is the fundamental reason
490 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

ASEAN was established in the first place. Mahathir remembered how

Western powers had dominated the region with a divide and rule policy,
stoking Indonesia against Malaysia during the confrontation era, and
there were latent issues with the Philippines, such as their claims in
Sabah. He was determined that solution of conflicts between Malaysia
and its neighbours must be avoided through good relations with ASEAN
members (Mohamad, 2011, p. 417). For him, globalization can bring
about a better world if people are not fanatical about particular interests
(Mohamad, 2000a, p. 42). Mahathir came into office with a favourable
disposition towards Japan and a less favourable disposition towards
Britain, and he was much more pro-Japanese than any other Southeast
Asian leader, which represented bold leadership given the sensitivity of
Japanese relations in many Asian states due to the experiences of WWII
(Milne & Mauzy, 1999, p. 123).
Mahathir’s “Look East” policy of preferring Asian neighbours over
Western economic and political interests increasingly revealed itself
during his tenure, aiming to prove that world powers such as the USA
and European countries came last as far as Malaysia was concerned.
Mahathir thus fostered mutually beneficial relations with Japan and South
Korea, as models of regional developed countries. Later, when China
left its Communist insurgent support in Malaysia, Mahathir accelerated
the establishment of firm relations with China, exhibiting a remarkable
spirit of rapprochement and reconciliation that would have been
acknowledged as great peacekeeping had he been a stooge of the West
(Mohamad, 2011, p. 417). However, Mahathir’s “Look East Policy” was
a general vision, and under no circumstances was it transformed from
an idea into a detailed political programme; rather Mahathir was always
first and foremost a pragmatist, seeking in every individual situation and
relationship the best interests of Malaysia (Salleh & Meyanathan, 1993,
p. 21). Naturally seeking the best interests of Malaysia as opposed to
the West was anathema to the latter, who subsequently began a massive
campaign of critique against the upstart Malaysia. Malaysia’s manifest
prosperity and socioeconomic development under Mahathir’s rule was
ignored, and he was personally eviscerated in global media, habitually
described as a dictator by the petulant former colonial masters in the
West.
Mahathir nominally respected traditions but used them only to
drive the passion of his rhetoric for unity. He was not interested in the
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 491

conventions that characterized the leadership style of his predecessors

when this hampered national progress. Nevertheless, he wanted Islam to
be an integral part of a moral and socially conservative society, he wanted
for his country, alongside rapid economic development and improved
education and opportunities for all Malaysians, particularly Malays.
Mahathir was the epitome of the modern leadership paradigm required
by Muslim-majority countries. He was modern but not Westernized
in the way previous PMs were. Nevertheless, his political career by
the 1990s had come up against increasing international censure and
pressure, and he realized that it was necessary to redefine his leadership
to suit the changing political landscape (Shome, 2002, p. 128).
2020 Project Perception
Regardless of his massive capacity for work, Mahathir was a
compassionate person who did not pursue his activities for the incentives
or any monetary gains. His enduring mission was to stimulate and
revolutionise the social and economic conditions that turned Malaysia
into a developed nation. Due to his firm devotion and strong leadership,
political permanency was vital for the development of the nation. This
prescription shows that he has purely charismatic leadership features
and that he applied them frequently (Wain, 2009, p. 54).
Charisma must show the way and must enter from the door. Mahathir
felt that he set ambitious but realistic targets for the nation, and he even
laid the groundwork for this work to be continued by his successors.
Charismatic political leaders are always showing a target to their nation
as Mahathir did. The NEP was terminated during the early 1990’s, and it
was very good opportunity for Mahathir to draft his economic ideas for
Federation of Malaysia. In 1991, Mahathir expected that under Vision
2020 Malaysia would be reaching to a height of an industrialised state
within 30 years (Wain, 2009, pp. 1-3).
Vision 2020 was introduced by Mahathir while tabling the Sixth
Malaysia Plan in 1991. This Vision calls for Malaysia to attain the
autonomous status of an industrialised nation by the year 2020, including
in terms of daily life, economic welfare, social security, a world-class
education system, psychological balance, and political stability. To attain
Vision 2020, Mahathir benchmarked a national growth requirement of
7% annually over the period of thirty-years (1990–2020), at the end of
which the economy would be eight times larger than its 1990 GDP of
492 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

RM115 billion. Subsequently, with this strategy, Malaysia’s GDP would

be RM920 billion to the year 2020 (Mohamad, 1991).
The Vision 2020 (1991-2020) was subdivided into a successive 10-
year advancement plans, known as OPP2 (The National Development
Policy 1991-2000); The Third Outline Perspective Plan OPP3 (The
National Vision Policy 2001-2010); and the New Economic Model
(NEM) 2011-2020 with National Transformation Programme NTP. As
Mahathir elaborated:
“Malaysia, as a developed country, must not have a society
in which economic backwardness is designated with race.
Surely, it does not imply individual income equality, a
situation in which all Malaysian population will have the
same income. This is an impossibility because by sheer dint
of our own individual effort, our own individual upbringing
and our individual preferences, we will all have different
economic worth, and will be financially rewarded differently.
An equality of individual income as propounded by socialists
and communists is not only not possible, it is not desirable
and is a formula for disaster. But I do believe that the
narrowing of the ethnic income gap, through the legitimate
provision of opportunities, through a closer parity of social
services and infrastructure, through the development of
the appropriate economic cultures and through full human
resource development, is both necessary and desirable.
We must aspire by the year 2020 to reach a stage where
no-one can say that a particular ethnic group is inherently
economically backward, and another is economically
inherently advanced. Such a situation is what we must work
for efficiently, effectively, with fairness and with dedication”
(Wawasan2020).

Telecommunications is a vital sector for the development of a nation, and

the Malaysian government gave many incentives and encouragements
to its telecommunications industries to prioritise local entrepreneurs. To
boost Vision 2020, the dawn of the new millennium saw a rejuvenation
of the process, and local telecommunications industries were expected
to play a dynamic role in producing a well-informed society (Mohamad,
2000e, p. 13). Vision 2020 was Mahathir Mohamad’s call for “industrial
discipline” and “mental revolution” (Chio, 2005, p. 80).
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 493

Mahathir had many reasons to be proud of the growth he presided

over during the 1990s and for displayed a target for Malaysia to become
an entirely developed nation by 2020 (Stewart, 2003, p. 9). For this
reason, he pioneered two flagship projects: the formation of Proton Saga
as a national car, and its subsequent variations; and the steel industry,
which channelled funds and energy into subsidised products that were
more symbolic of nationalist aspirations than meaningful contributions
to the nation’s wealth (Stewart, 2003, p. 10).
Economic Defence of the Country
In 1994, Mahathir described the West’s switch of tactics in order to
impair East Asian economies’ ability to compete. According to him, they
liked to see the Asian egalitarian societies as feeble, unbalanced, and
inferior. He castigated intrigues by the West to dent East Asian financial
prudence. Their primary efforts were camouflaged in talk of fairness
and basic rights, which were fundamentally superfluous given their
long and recent history of warmongering in ASEAN and throughout
the world. Subsequently, they were pleasantly offering to eradicate the
resources of Asian thrift in order to stop Asian countries from effectively
challenging the West. The suggestion for a universal minimum wage was
one clear case. They knew that this was a perfect solution to remove at a
stroke the only substantive competitive advantage of emerging nations
in attracting industrial investment (Milne & Mauzy, 1999, p. 89). He
believed that the Western powers did not want developing nations like
Malaysia to outdo them in terms of progress (Mohamad, 2000d, p. 17).
The year 1997 should have been victorious for Mahathir. The
Malaysian economy was displaying good acceleration after a decade
of growth at an annual rate of more than 8 per cent, and the National
Front coalition was in firm political control, so he could step back
as head of the state and enjoy retirement, and let his deputy, Anwar
Ibrahim, take over (Stewart, 2003, p. 3). However, the financial crisis
in Southeast Asia started in mid-1997 (initially in Thailand), and
subsequently spread throughout the region. The Malaysian ringgit
collapsed because of exchange rates, resulting in a flight of external
capital and the subsequent fall of the main stock exchange index by
around 75 per cent. The IMF pounced with its demand for reduced
social spending, and the government thus began to think to reduce
executive expenditure and increase interest rates, which exacerbated
494 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

the hardships of normal people. Policy differences between Mahathir

Mohammad and Anwar Ibrahim affected governmental harmony, but
this was not the main reason for the conflict between Mahathir and
Anwar. At any rate, Anwar subsequently resigned in the context of the
failure of his soft policy, in contrast to Mahathir’s orthodox challenge to
the IMF and big money speculators. Mahathir contumaciously increased
governmental spending and fixed the Malaysian Ringgit to the Dollar.
The outcomes surprised all of the world, and especially the IMF. As
a result of Mahathir’s emergency solution policy to exit from crisis,
Malaysia emerged smoother and quicker than its regional neighbours.
In internal affairs this represented a triumph for Mahathir, and during
the economic repercussions in 1998 Mahathir discharged his Finance
Minister and Deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim, and assumed direct control of
the economy (Wain, 2009, pp. 105-109).
Unlike Tun Razak or Tun Hussein Onn, who were quite detached in
their outlook, Mahathir tended to look at problems in a more personal
way; perhaps this had to do with his ‘doctor-patient’ approach. It can
be said that his medical background coloured his political ability, and
he was definitely dissimilar from previous leaders in one major style,
preferring his own diagnosis of issues, savouring dominance, and
avoiding delegation (Shome, 2002, p. 132):
“My training as a doctor also helped me to approach
problems in a rigorously methodical and logical manner,
another skill that would help me in politics. When faced
with political or administrative problems I always apply
the same approach. The solution may not always be right,
but mid-course corrections can be made as problems arise.
The results from this methodical way are seldom entirely
negative. During the currency crises of 1997-1998, when
the value of the Malaysian ringgit was plummeting, we
were told that our problem was our mismanagement of the
economy. I refused to believe this, as only months earlier,
the IMF Managing Director Michael Camdessus had praised
Malaysia’s administration. I had to find out exactly why the
crisis was happening to identify the causes, or aetiology as
we say in medicine. In politics as well, if you can remove
the causes you may be able to overcome the problem. And
as in medicine, standard formulae may not always work.
Sometimes, outwardly similar occurrences of the same
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 495

problem in different places may be due to different causes.

The IMF apparently believes that all financial problems can
be overcome simply by reducing expenditure, achieving a
surplus, increasing interest rates, and bankrupting inefficient
business. The IMF merely looks at the numbers, caring little
that bankrupting such companies can have far-reaching
social repercussions. Although I have no clear evidence of it,
there seemed to be something of a hidden agenda to prevent
upstart nations from becoming established economies”
(Mohamad, 2011, p. 294).

Mahathir referred to “sinister powers” who were using their economic

might to weaken developing countries. These neo-colonialists wanted
nations like Malaysia to “bow down and end up being debtors to them”,
so they could dictate what Malaysians should or should not do. He
accused the West of a conspiracy to bring down governments in South-
East Asia (Stewart, 2003, p. 4). Mahathir did not surrender his country
to the IMF and he led Malaysia successfully through an unprecedented
economic crisis, holding his nerve against Western hostility and domestic
cowardice in the face of the diktats of the international financial system.
This courageous stance made him popular all over the world among
anti-colonialists. Ostensibly, we can say that he saved his country. In
choosing to follow an autonomous, rational, and orthodox policy to save
the country from deeper crisis, Mahathir saved Malaysia and its people
from the tyranny of the IMF, who cared nothing for the socioeconomic
and political ravages of their crude management solutions. When
Mahathir saw the crisis of confidence due to the fall of ringgit, and
businesses problems, he sensed that Malaysia was under attack, and he
knew the objective was to seize the country’s private sector, which was
why he refused the poisoned chalice offered by the IMF.
Before the economic crises, Mahathir had actually been planning
to step down, having served 18 gruelling years by 1998, and he only
reluctantly remained in position at this juncture due to the crises and
problems in Malaysia and UMNO. He saw the crises in very black and
white terms as a coherent attack on Malaysia’s economy, and there
were opportunist traitors inside his own party trying to capitalise on
the confusion and instability in order to grab power, thus he acted
decisively to prevent the plundering of Malaysia and its people’s assets.
Naturally, this angered the enemies of Malaysia, including George Soros
(b. 1930), who did not think Mahathir’s idea about a ban on currency
496 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

trading deserved any serious consideration. For Soros, Mahathir’s

policy was a danger, and Mahathir was outrageous (Stewart, 2003, p.
3). In the following process, spin-doctors appeared, and Mahathir was
criticized and humiliated. A London-based analyst said that Malaysia
was suffering from an “IQ crisis” (i.e. the former colonial subjects were
too stupid to govern themselves and manage their economy properly
without the IMF and international financial system to hold their hands),
and for them what Mahathir knew about economics could be “written
on the back of a postage stamp” (Mohamad, 2000c, p. 31).
Time for Changing Leadership - Being a Legend Instead of
Becoming Retired
There was no doubt though that Mahathir’s stirring leadership was
an enigma that cannot be ignored, and to belittle him would be to
give scant regard to one of the most important personalities of Asian
political history. To measure Mahathir by any yardstick can be difficult,
since his length in office provided an assumption of his success. As
a prerequisite to continuing leadership, he naturally needed to be re-
elected to Parliament, but that had always been an easy hurdle to get
over even when his political works were outlawed. Political manoeuvres
within the inner circle of UMNO were more difficult to manage, but he
had consistently triumphed over petty political squabbles by skilfully
capitalizing on the loyalty of those who mattered most in the survival
of his leadership (Shome, 2002, p. 129). His rise under UMNO was
unparalleled, as well as his resignation. At this point, he began to sense
that his intense efforts to promote the socio-economic conditions of
Malays and Malaysia were not as welcome as they had been:
“For 21 years I had done my job as best as I could, but I
was becoming increasingly mindful of what my mother had
always said when I was a young boy: never overstay your
welcome… When I was finally sure that the time was right,
I kept it to myself... I had made up my mind to announce
my resignation at the end of 56th UMNO Annual General
Assembly in 2002, when I was to give my closing speech.
I chose that time and place because then the announcement
would be a public statement that I would not be able to
retract. I thought that if I told a few people, they would try
to dissuade me. If I then reserved my position, my critics
would say I had reneged. The foreign press would also have
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 497

a good laugh if they heard me say I would resign and then

did not…. Throughout my tenure, I tried hard to establish
certain standards. Firstly, I did not encourage the adulation
and excessive glorification that is often given to leaders.
I was determined that there would be no personality cult.
Even when I held the education portfolio, I stopped the
practice of naming schools after the prime minister. When I
became prime minister, I also refused to allow the naming of
buildings and facilities after myself or any living person other
than the Malay Rulers. I gave instructions that my official
picture should not be displayed in government buildings,
although this was widely ignored. To date, nothing has been
named after me, except an orchid. I even rejected the idea of
memorial library” (Mohamad, 2011).

During his time in office, Mahathir had adopted a slogan “leadership

by example” and tried to live by that slogan in every way. His stepping
down voluntarily was part of that creed, as he declared in his memoires.
For him, leaders should not cling to their position but should learn to
recognise the signs of what their followers feel; if they felt it was time
that their leaders should go, they should go. Although he knew that
those who benefited from his decision would not always be grateful or
even appreciative, he never regretted resigning voluntarily. “I still think
that leaders, no matter how popular they may be, should listen to their
conscience and not wait until they are pushed out” (Mohamad, 2011,
pp. 762-763).
Conclusion
The task of governance is intrinsically difficult, and multi-ethnic nations
often struggle to produce effective leaders capable of uniting disparate
communities in pursuit of common national interests, governing the
country with equality fairness. In such contexts, strong leadership is
essential to perform effective governance. In response to the Asian
Monetary Crisis of 1997-1998, Malaysia’s economy bounced in an
upward trajectory. As one of many fledgling post-colonial nations of
the late 20th century, Malaysia had never countenanced a charismatic,
powerful, and modest leader like Mahathir, who seemed to be an
aberration in the malaise of stunted development that faced comparable
countries, in Southeast Asia and throughout the world (Wain, 2009, p.
55). He was obviously and absolutely a man of principle and action
(Rashid, 1993, pp. 171-172). Mahathir was constantly in a rush in his
498 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

intense drive to push Malaysia forward, utilising all available national

and personal resources to that end, and his only regret was that he did
not do more (Kulkarni, Jayasankaran, & Hiebert, 1996, p. 18). Mahathir
tried to inject an element of sagacity in public and national symbols,
concluding strategies such as the national car Proton, the Sepang
Formula One circuit, and the iconic PETRONAS Twin Towers.
Mahathir faced intense opposition, both internationally and in
Malaysia itself, and he was criticized mercilessly by rich elites who
resented his modernising reforms. In comparable context, authoritarian
leaders in nearby states crushed press freedoms and freedom of
expression, but Mahathir let his actions be the best riposte, and the
stunning Malaysian response to the 1998 Crisis was attributable to his
charismatic leadership, steering the country clear of the IMF ambush
promulgated by Soros and the international financial pyramid of
domination.
Politically, his policy differences damaged his friendship with his
protégé Anwar Ibrahim, his implicit successor as the next Prime Minister
of Malaysia. One of Mahathir’s superb talents was his aptitude to
encounter a calamity tranquilly, and not capitulate to dread and panicked
responses. At critical junctures where the country and political class
were engulfed in mayhem, he steered an even course above the squall.
With Stoic resolve he noted that “the world will not come to an end”
(in relation to monetary fluctuations), and there was ultimately nothing
to worry about (Wain, 2009, p. 57). There was a widespread antipathy
among foreign (particularly Western) leaders and officials to his failure
to capitulate into cowardice and servitude on the familiar pattern of
‘developing’ nations, arising from his rightful position underpinned by
his formidable personality and non-conformity (Stewart, 2003, p. 12).
Mahathir’s management of Malaysia during the late 20th century
changed the perception of Malaysia from another third-world failure to
a vibrant and dynamic global economy and society. As a commoner his
ability to transcend traditional class structures in Malaysia’s conservative
society while respecting the unassailable values of religion, family, and
culture was remarkable, and was based purely on his inherent talents and
hard work. After becoming PM he was able to implement his patriotic
vision for the country. In the eyes of people and in their imagination,
Malaysia was not a poor country on the “African” model anymore, but
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 499

a well-developed and globally respected Tiger Economy. Mahathir was

the one of the most important political figures during this development
process. Throughout Mahathir’s tenure of office, Malaysia enlarged
from a developing country position to become the world’s 13th largest
economy. When he began as PM in 1981, Malaysia’s gross national
income per capita was at $1930 (US), while by the time he left office in
2003 this had more than doubled to $4,160. His risk-taking personality
undoubted enabled this economic success. For him:
“some say to be a big frog in a small pond is no great
achievement, but we have proven that even a little frog in
a big pool can thumb its nose at the largest, most powerful
toad. That it can has not only been gratifying to us, but has
also vindicated our foreign and national policies and has
brought us self-respect and pride, and given us a sense of
accomplishment. Malaysia has shown that a well-intentioned
policy of engagement, cooperation and practical involvement
with small countries can prove far more beneficial and
successful on the international stage than a policy of
antagonism, aggression and domination as practised by
world powers. There is no need to toady to the powerful”
(Mohamad, 2011, p. 440).

Mahathir in many ways was an outsider. A nationalist and modernizer,

he was essentially realistic, and had little regard for obfuscating rules,
morals, and values that might hamper his highly motivated campaigns.
Even though Mahathir accumulated numerous honorific titles reflecting
his unique importance in Malaysian history (Datuk, Datuk Seri, and
Tun), we generally prefer to call him “Dr.” Mahathir, a title he warranted
with his valediction from medical school in 1953. As he said himself, “I
earned that one” (Wain, 2009, p. 1).
It is a great irony that some critics refer to Mahathir as a dictator,
ignoring the fact that he was a democratically elected PM. When
this charge is levelled by Malaysians, it reflects the internalisation
of the Western paradigm of dominion, where those who enable the
international financial system to expropriate national resources – the
land, resources, labour, and even bodies and souls of the people – are
good guys and democrats, while those who safeguard national interests
and the integrity of current and future generations are decried as
dictators and despots. Mahathir has amply received his share of such
500 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

smears. When Western leaders display uncompromising politics and

leadership they are lauded as strongmen and inspirational visionaries,
such as the ‘Iron Lady’, Margaret Thatcher. Much of the vitriol directed
against Mahathir was due to his statements about the Jewish lobby, and
international indoctrination inspired some local academics to join this
caravan of criticism. Had Mahathir capitulated to the Zionist lobby
and surrendered his country to the IMF he would have been labelled
a great peacemaker and would have been feted worldwide and by the
intellectual stooges of Western neoliberalism within Malaysia, but due
to his principles he was labelled a dictator, and his essential role in
saving Malaysia is unacknowledged by such prejudicial views. Bary
Wain (1944-2013) attached great importance to the concept that few had
the courage to appear as opposing leadership candidates to Mahathir,
which reflects his outstanding qualities; some opposing party members
described him as an “extraordinary leader” and acknowledged that it
would be difficult to discover another seminal leader of his type in
centuries (BBC, 2002).
Mahathir has implemented an extraordinary dominating impact
over his country’s public life. As an economic modernizer without fear
of registering a scepticism of democracy and human rights, he directed
the politics of Malaysia to his wish and in the process he successfully
subordinated the constitutional monarchy (with its track record of
fatal weakness in the face of Western agendas), the judiciary, and the
predominant political party, the UMNO, which he led continuously
despite a major challenge in 1987 that almost unseated him (Milne &
Mauzy, 1999). He was careful of his status with Islamic world leaders,
with whom he enjoyed enormous popularity. While he revelled in
international compliments and support, he was also cautious of Islamic
conservatives back home who feared that economic and technological
modernisation might be harbingers of Westernisation. Mahathir is an
enigma of 21st century leadership style per se, and his case is particularly
interesting in presenting an Islamic vision of modernity (Shome, 2002,
p. 196).
Malaysia is one of the most respected states in the world today. Its
socioeconomic development is a shining example of the possibilities
of multinational states. Unquestionably Mahathir is at the heart of
this development process as a leader and visionary. Perhaps his most
significant and enduring legacy is not the economic transformation he
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 501

oversaw, but his fostering of ethnic harmony among the monitories

of Malaysia, especially his peaceful management of the inequalities
between the Malay majority and Chinese economic and professional
elite. When he became PM, most Malays were extremely poor
and very few had tertiary education or professional qualifications.
Mahathir prioritised the elevation of the Malays through education and
employment, alongside public planning and development. Charismatic
political leadership features are evident in Mahathir’s personality,
conditioned by his family education and his formative years, and he
was a shining example of good leadership qualities from his very first
years in politics. The dominant political party’s sovereignty permitted
such radical leadership. Tunku Abdul Rahman, as the first PM who
governed Malaysia during its initial independence era was considered
the “father of the nation”, and is generally commended for his efforts
for national harmony and economic effectiveness. The second PM,
Tun Abdul Razak, had an agenda of rural progress and transformation.
The third, Tun Hussein Onn, prioritised stability and clean government
(Salleh & Meyanathan, 1993, p. 36). Mahathir Mohammed built on
these efforts with his illumined vision and public sector restructuring
to drive national progress toward developed status. As a result, we can
claim that among the Malaysian PMs, Mahathir’s status is exceptional
and demonstrates distinctive charismatic leadership.

Bibliography
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic
leadership using a levels-of-analysis framework. The Leadership
Quarterly, 1(3), 193—208. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90020-I
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and
effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (3), pp. 345-373. doi:10.1016/
s1048-9843(99)00022-3
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New
York, USA: The Free Press.
BBC. (2002, 6 25). Retrieved 7 15, 2019, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-
pacific/2064656.stm
Belle, C. V. (2015). Tragic Orphans: Indians in Malaysia. Singapore: Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies.
502 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

Bettin, P. J., & Kennedy, J. K. (1990). Leadership experience and leader

performance: Some empirical support at last. The Leadership Quarterly,
1(4), 219—228. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90002-Y
Beyer, J. M. (2000). Two approaches to studying charismatic leadership:
Competing or complementary? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 575-588.
doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00037-5
Blondel, J. (1987). Political leadership: Towards a general analysis. London,
UK: SAGE.
Butterfield, D. A. (1972). Leadership and organizational effectiveness. In P.
Mott, The characteristics of effective organizations (pp. 117-149). New
York, USA: Harper & Row.
Chio, V. C. (2005). Malaysia and the Development Process: Globalization,
Knowledge Transfers and Postcolonial Dilemmas. New York, USA:
Routledge.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The Jossey-Bass management series. The charismatic
leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA,
USA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of
charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review,, 12(4), 637—647. doi:10.2307/258069
Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic
leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
8(1), 49-65.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing
about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 24(2), 286-307. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.1893937
Fleishman, E. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Individual
differences and leadership: An overview. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4),
237—243. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(91)90015-T
Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to personality.
Psychological Science, 2(1), 31-39.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual
analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship.
Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310-329. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.310
Hamzah, H. H. (1990). Mahathir, great Malaysian hero (2. Edition ed.). Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia: Media Print Publications.
Helms, L. (2012). Comparative political leadership. Springer. London, GB:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 503

Hickling, R. H., & Wishart, D. A. (1988-1989). Malaysia: Dr Mahathir’s

Thinking on Constitutional Issues. Sydney NSW, AUSTRALIA: The Law
Association for Asia and the Pacific-Lawasia.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The
Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(92)90005-Z
Hooker, V. M. (2003). Short History of Malaysia : Linking East and West.
Crows Nest NSW, Australia: Allen &Unwin.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.
Jones, M. (2002). Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia, 1961–1965
Britain, the United States and the Creation of Malaysia. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Khoo, B. (1995). Paradoxes of Mahathirism: An Intellectual Biography of
Mahathir Mohamad. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Khoo, G. C. (2011). Taking liberties Independent filmmakers representing
the tudung in Malaysia. In A. N. Weintraub, Islam and popular culture in
Indonesia and Malaysia (pp. 195-211). New York, USA: Routledge.
Kulkarni, V., Jayasankaran, S. S., & Hiebert, M. (1996). Dr Feelgood. Far
Eastern Economic Review, 18-22.
Lee, H. P. (1996). Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia. London,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Leadership and information processing:
Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, USA: Unwin-Hyman.
Milne, R. S., & Mauzy, D. K. (1999). Malaysian Politics under Mahathir.
London, UK: Routledge.
Mohamad, M. (1991). Malaysia: The Way Forward (Vision 2020). Malaysian
Business Council.
Mohamad, M. (2000a). Globalasiation, Smart Partnership and Government-
Selected Speech By Dr Mahathir Mohamed Prime Minister of Malaysa.
Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk publications (M) Sdn Bhd. Malaysia.
Mohamad, M. (2000b). Islam and Muslim Ummah, Selected Speech By Dr
Mahathir Mohamed Prime Minister of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn Bhd.
Mohamad, M. (2000c). Managing The Malaysian Economy, Selected Speech
By Dr Mahathir Mohamed Prime Minister of Malaysa. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn Bhd.
Mohamad, M. (2000d). Politics, Democracy and New Asia, Selected Speeches
by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia (Vol. Vol. 2). (H.
504 Intellectual Discourse, Vol 27, No 2, 2019

Makaruddin, Ed.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pelanduk publications (M)

Sdn Bhd.
Mohamad, M. (2000e). Regional Cooperation and The Digital Economy,
Selected Speech By Dr Mahathir Mohamed Prime Minister of Malaysa.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn Bhd.
Mohamad, M. (2011). A Doctor in the House: The Memoirs of Tun Dr. Mahathir
Mohamad. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MPH Group Publishing Sdn Bhd.
Morais, J. V. (1982). Mahathir, a profile in courage. Singapore: Eastern
Universities Press.
Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader
performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. The Leadership
Quarterly, 2(4), 289—315.
Puffer, S. (1990). Attributions of charismatic leadership: The impact of decision
style, outcome, and observer characteristics. The Leadership Quarterly,
1(3), 178-179.
Puffer, S. M. (1990). Attributions of charismatic leadership: The impact of
decision style, outcome, and observer characteristics. The Leadership
Quarterly, 1(3).
Pye, L. W., & Pye, M. W. (1985). Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural
Dimensions of Authority. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard
University Press.
Rashid, R. (1993). A Malaysian Journey. Petaling Jaya: Rehman Rashid.
Salleh, I. M., & Meyanathan, S. D. (1993). Malaysia - The lessons of East Asia
: growth, equity, and structural transformation. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank Press.
Sankaran, R., & Adnan, M. H. (1988). Malaysia’s 1986 General Election: the
Urban-Rural Dichotomy. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Schmidt, V. A. (2007). Trapped by their ideas: French élites’ discourses of
European integration and globalization 1. Journal of European Public
Policy, 14(7), 992-1009. doi:10.1080/13501760701576494
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of
charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science,
4(4), 577—594. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Sheridan, G. (1995). Tigers: Leaders of the New Asia-Pacific. St Leonards,
New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Shome, A. S. (2002). Malay Political Leadership. London, UK: Routledge
Curzon Pub.
Stewart, I. (2003). The Mahathir legacy : a nation divided, a region at risk.
Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Charismatic Political Leadership and Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s Malaysia: Power, Control, Stability and Defence 505

The Star. (2019, 07 10). Retrieved 7 14, 2019, from https://www.

thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/07/10/dr-m-i-owe-it-to-my-late-
mum?sfns=mo#AWOvJy0kTxdPLu1W.99
Thomas, T., & Faruqi, S. S. (1987). Role of the judiciary. In T. Chee-Beng,
Reflections on the Malaysian Constitution (pp. 65-81). Penang: Aliran
Kesedaran Negara.
Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1986). The concept of charisma. Research in
Organisational Behavior, Vol 8, 118-164.
Wain, B. (2009). Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times.
New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wawasan2020. (n.d.). Retrieved 7 14, 2019, from http://www.wawasan2020.
com/vision/p22.html
Weaver, D. R. (1991). Liberalism and leadership: Lockean roots. The Leadership
Quarterly, 2(3), 157—174. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(91)90008-P
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. (A.
Henderson, & T. Parsons, Trans.) New York, USA: Oxford University
Press.
White, N. J. (2004). British Business in Postcolonial Malaysia, 1957–70 ‘Neo-
colonialism’ or ‘disengagement’? New York, USA: Routledge.
Yukl, G. A., & Fleet, D. D. (1982). Cross-situational, multimethod research
on military leader effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 30(1), 87-108. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(82)90235-5
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 6-16.
 © 2019. This work is published under NOCC (the
“License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and
Conditions, you may use this content in accordance
with the terms of the License.