THE catchphrases being repeated by opposition leaders who unexpectedly won power in five states in the March 8 general election must be giving long- time observers of Malaysian politics a bad case of deja vu.

Opposition slogans demanding an end to corruption, renewed emphasis on good governance, a more humble leadership and policies to unite the races rather than divide them certainly sound eerily familiar.

Who else espoused such principles on first coming to power? The answer, of course, is the man many of today’s reformers hold responsible for most – if not all – of Malaysia’s current woes: former premier Mahathir Mohamad.

Tun Dr Mahathir humble? A reformer?

Yes indeed! If the Dr Mahathir of 1981 could visit Malaysia today, the feisty leader would probably be applauding the reform movement himself.

For those too young to remember, any standard textbook on Malaysian politics can serve as a primer. Reading one may also inject some realism into the analyses being produced now by a younger generation of Malaysian bloggers, not to mention older commentators who have been swept along with the tide.

Consider Dr Mahathir’s speech at the 1981 Umno general assembly, just after he became party president. Reading it, one gets the sense of a leader who felt genuinely humbled by the enormous task before him.

“In all my political experience before this, there was always someone senior to refer to, to lean on, to turn to for protection, even to save myself from blame,” he said. “But today I can no longer do so. My burden is my burden, and the burdens of others too shall be my burden.”

It was not long, however, before Dr Mahathir found his feet, and the nation was treated to a flood of new measures designed to encourage accountability and improve government efficiency. Malaysians of all races applauded as he promised to “put the fear of God” into corrupt administrators. Civil servants had to declare their assets, and the Public Complaints Bureau was reactivated.

To prevent civil servants from hiding behind their anonymity, the new prime minister insisted they wear name tags. Indeed, he wore one himself. It said simply “Mahathir”. Leadership, he said, was by example – memimpin melalui teladan. The slogan came back to haunt Dr Mahathir and his ministers in later years, but back then it really meant something.

Dr Mahathir also introduced a clock-in system for civil servants. He would turn up unannounced at government offices when they opened in the morning. Woe betide departmental heads who were not there to receive him.

Opposition groups also found themselves enjoying a sense of freedom. One of Dr Mahathir’s first acts as prime minister was to release 21 prominent dissidents detained under the Internal Security Act.

Concerned about the need to find ways to unite the country in the face of the sometimes insensitive implementation of policies designed to assist the economically weak Malays, Dr Mahathir presided over a campaign to wrest control of major companies such as Guthrie from the foreign interests that had dominated the economy since independence. This was followed by a Look East policy designed to encourage citizens to draw inspiration from successful economies such as Japan and South Korea.

Other actions were more symbolic. West Malaysia time, for example, was brought forward by 30 minutes to align it with East Malaysia. A minor change perhaps, but it made an important point at a time when West Malaysians knew little about the eastern states. Immigration restrictions then meant that travellers at the old Subang airport still had to go through the international departure section to catch a flight to Kuching or Kota Kinabalu.

Almost all the policies Dr Mahathir introduced during his 22-year rule can be described as “Malaysian nationalist”. There were few “Malay nationalist” causes of the type he famously espoused earlier in his career.

Not surprisingly, many regarded Dr Mahathir as a new breed of Malay, unencumbered by the feudal ideas of his aristocratic predecessors. Even his battle with the sultans in 1983 can be seen as an attack on privilege, although – as critics noted at the time – the upshot was a worrying concentration of power in his hands.

So what went wrong?

Given Dr Mahathir’s tough response to the student demonstrations of 1975 when he was education minister, it is possible to argue that he had been an authoritarian figure all along. Certainly, he disliked compromise. Instead, his stubborn commitment to reform in the early 1980s rarely left time to listen to second opinions.

The year 1987, however, seemed to mark a turning point. After a challenge by Tengku Razaleigh for the Umno leadership almost forced him from power, Dr Mahathir appears to have drawn two lessons from the experience.

The first was the vital importance of control over patronage resources in order to secure the defeat of political opponents. The second was the need to find ways of ensuring that party, government and, ultimately, business leaders were personally beholden to him.

The nation-building slogans and grandiose plans continued, of course, but power gradually became an end in itself rather than a means to an end, and the nation suffered as a result.

The Mahathir experience serves as a warning against over-exuberance in the wake of the March 8 election results. In recent weeks, many pro-opposition commentators have been falling over themselves to announce the dawn of a new era in Malaysian politics. Malaysia is indeed changing. But we know now that good intentions and appealing slogans are not enough.

Thus, it would probably be wise to reserve judgment about long-term trends. Given the right set of circumstances, today’s reformers could find themselves travelling down the same path Dr Mahathir took.

Copyright 2008 Singapore Press Holdings