The title itself is a give-away maybe. Many have written about both individuals on many issues -- be it their achievements, their brutal politics and what not. However, the question is, have we actually learnt anything from our history books? Authoritarian figures do not normally fall from the sky. They are made by a gradual process of political manoeuvring, sadly with mass support. The amazing part about authoritarian figures is that most of them normally share the same charasteristics. Take Adolf Hitler and Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Though both came from two different eras, so many similarities can be seen between the characters. For example, both had strong nationalistic love for their motherland for their own reasons.
While Hitler wished to unite the nation as a military powerhouse, Mahathir wished to unite the Malays and transform Malaysia's economy to fit the modern age.
When Hitler rose to power becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1932, he instituted many economic reforms that saved the nation's economy from going bust altogether, eventually turning it into a military economy.
While Mahathir did not inherit a bankrupt economy from his predeccesor Hussein Onn, nevertheless he transformed Malaysia from an agriculture-based economy into a modern industrial-based one. By mid-90s, Malaysia became an economic tiger in Southeast Asia.
Everyone enjoyed economic and social comfort during their reign. Unemployment numbers were low and everyone had reasonable level of disposable income to spend.
Machiavellian politics
In order to consolidate his power, Hitler merged the chancellory office with the presidential office to become the Fuhrer (supreme leader), effectively gaining controlling on crucial state apparatuses such as the military, police, parliament and the judiciary.
While Mahathir did not really remove the Council of Rulers and turned the nation into a republic, he nevertheless made it clear to them who was in charge by stripping the rulers of their immunity and royal assent to pass parliamentary bills in the 80s and the 90s.
Barry Wain aptly described Mahathir in his book “Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times: “By the end of his 22- year tenure, Mahathir had remade his country in his own image and become Malaysia's presidential premier.”
His controversial move not only sent shivers down the spines of those still attached to the feudal concept of Malaysian lifestyle, his move also ensured the royalty knew that he will not tolerate any opposition from anyone, rulers included. No one will be in his way of bringing Malaysia into the new age.
Both towering figures commanded respect and fear from their own Cabinet and lawmakers. Hitler commanded even the army to swear an oath of loyalty to him alone, and not to the nation. Dissenters were swiftly put away using the draconian powers he wielded via the Enabling Act 1933, be it opposition members or within his own ranks.
In Mahathir's era, he controlled the crucial two-thirds parliamentary majority which gives him power to amend the constitution at will. While lawmakers were controlled by the party whip, the Cabinet is bounded by collective decision. In other words, Mahathir became the Cabinet and the Parliament.
Dissenters suffered their wrath to the fullest extent. While Hitler used his Gestapo and the SS to get rid of critics, Mahathir used the state instrument such as the police and the legislation to silence dissenters.
Press freedom was at its lowest in both men's reign. Hitler as the Fuhrer controlled the judiciary and he became the judge, jury and executioner.
Mahathir stripped the judiciary of its independence in 1998, after the sacking of the then Lord President Salleh Abas and five other judges. A few constitutional amendments followed suit to ensure the judiciary no longer holds power to intepret law and dispense justice independently.
Like it or not, Germany was Hitler's baby then and Malaysia was Mahathir's. The difference is, Mahathir is still alive and he is still trying to influence policy-makers to run the country the way he wants it to be run.
While Hitler was in a confrontational mode -- defying the Versailles treaty and preparing for a military conquest of the United Kingdom -- his deputy Rudolf Hess was hoping UK would become an ally to fight against the Soviet Union.
Hess then flew to England to secure peace, incurring the wrath of the Fuhrer who ordered him to be shot if he was ever seen in Germany.
Mahathir had another “foe” to battle in 1997 -- the Southeast Asia financial crisis. While Mahathir was adamant on currency control and bailing out uncompetitive business entities, his deputy Anwar Ibrahim was adamant on helping only competitive entities and was more accomodating to the ideas proposed by the International Monetary Fund.
Hence, Mahathir “shot” his deputy Anwar with dismissal and sent him packing to jail on corruption charges.
Personal traits
There are many similarities which Mahathir and Hitler share even on a personal note. Both had very strict fathers whom they feared and very close personal bonds with their mothers.
Both do not drink alcholic beverage and are non-smokers. None was known to have been womanisers.
Nevertheless, Mahathir pursued higher education knowing full well of its importance while the latter never made in the Vienna school of arts and was loitering in the streets, doing menial jobs for sustenance.
While we can share more about both men's similarities or differences, one important point to note is that both men did not rise to power via military conquest or by some dubious means. Instead both were elected to power.
Dictators are not born, they are made by the people after creating certain emotional feeling over an issue that is close to the people's heart.
Hitler used the communists and the Jews as scapegoat in order to gain popularity among Germans, blaming them for Germany's defeat in World War 1. As nationalistic fever was high in Germans then, they swallowed his argument without even mincing it.
As for Mahathir, he worked on two strategies. When dealing with the outside world, he instilled fear among Malaysians of Western economic imperialism. When dealing with the locals, it was all about putting the fear among the Malays that they may lose political control to the non-Malays if they do not unite under his reign.
Both were master politicians and very Machiavellian in their ways.
Truth be told, Malaysians were fooled by the same “fear-generated political climate” perpetuated by Mahathir who knew his trade well.
While Germans have gained vast political maturity since Hitler days, unfortunately there are still Malaysians who are in awe of “Mahathirist politics” though he is no longer the premier.
We have organisations like Perkasa, Gertak and Umno itself still perpetuating nationalistic fear among Malays, citing the non-Malay threat to Malay domination.
Fortunately, many Malaysians of various races have wised up and dismissed such political rhetoric, knowing full well their words are nothing but to save their own political career, which is nearing its doom.
Ultimately, the people should wise up and study their leaders well before empowering them. We cannot undo the past but the next time a person shows up with the same traits, the people should decide whether to accept or reject them.
FMT
13/07/10
Though both came from two different eras, so many similarities can be seen between the characters. For example, both had strong nationalistic love for their motherland for their own reasons.
While Hitler wished to unite the nation as a military powerhouse, Mahathir wished to unite the Malays and transform Malaysia's economy to fit the modern age.
When Hitler rose to power becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1932, he instituted many economic reforms that saved the nation's economy from going bust altogether, eventually turning it into a military economy.
While Mahathir did not inherit a bankrupt economy from his predeccesor Hussein Onn, nevertheless he transformed Malaysia from an agriculture-based economy into a modern industrial-based one. By mid-90s, Malaysia became an economic tiger in Southeast Asia.
Everyone enjoyed economic and social comfort during their reign. Unemployment numbers were low and everyone had reasonable level of disposable income to spend.
Machiavellian politics
In order to consolidate his power, Hitler merged the chancellory office with the presidential office to become the Fuhrer (supreme leader), effectively gaining controlling on crucial state apparatuses such as the military, police, parliament and the judiciary.
While Mahathir did not really remove the Council of Rulers and turned the nation into a republic, he nevertheless made it clear to them who was in charge by stripping the rulers of their immunity and royal assent to pass parliamentary bills in the 80s and the 90s.
Barry Wain aptly described Mahathir in his book “Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times: “By the end of his 22- year tenure, Mahathir had remade his country in his own image and become Malaysia's presidential premier.”
His controversial move not only sent shivers down the spines of those still attached to the feudal concept of Malaysian lifestyle, his move also ensured the royalty knew that he will not tolerate any opposition from anyone, rulers included. No one will be in his way of bringing Malaysia into the new age.
Both towering figures commanded respect and fear from their own Cabinet and lawmakers. Hitler commanded even the army to swear an oath of loyalty to him alone, and not to the nation. Dissenters were swiftly put away using the draconian powers he wielded via the Enabling Act 1933, be it opposition members or within his own ranks.
In Mahathir's era, he controlled the crucial two-thirds parliamentary majority which gives him power to amend the constitution at will. While lawmakers were controlled by the party whip, the Cabinet is bounded by collective decision. In other words, Mahathir became the Cabinet and the Parliament.
Dissenters suffered their wrath to the fullest extent. While Hitler used his Gestapo and the SS to get rid of critics, Mahathir used the state instrument such as the police and the legislation to silence dissenters.
Press freedom was at its lowest in both men's reign. Hitler as the Fuhrer controlled the judiciary and he became the judge, jury and executioner.
Mahathir stripped the judiciary of its independence in 1998, after the sacking of the then Lord President Salleh Abas and five other judges. A few constitutional amendments followed suit to ensure the judiciary no longer holds power to intepret law and dispense justice independently.
Like it or not, Germany was Hitler's baby then and Malaysia was Mahathir's. The difference is, Mahathir is still alive and he is still trying to influence policy-makers to run the country the way he wants it to be run.
While Hitler was in a confrontational mode -- defying the Versailles treaty and preparing for a military conquest of the United Kingdom -- his deputy Rudolf Hess was hoping UK would become an ally to fight against the Soviet Union.
Hess then flew to England to secure peace, incurring the wrath of the Fuhrer who ordered him to be shot if he was ever seen in Germany.
Mahathir had another “foe” to battle in 1997 -- the Southeast Asia financial crisis. While Mahathir was adamant on currency control and bailing out uncompetitive business entities, his deputy Anwar Ibrahim was adamant on helping only competitive entities and was more accomodating to the ideas proposed by the International Monetary Fund.
Hence, Mahathir “shot” his deputy Anwar with dismissal and sent him packing to jail on corruption charges.
Personal traits
There are many similarities which Mahathir and Hitler share even on a personal note. Both had very strict fathers whom they feared and very close personal bonds with their mothers.
Both do not drink alcholic beverage and are non-smokers. None was known to have been womanisers.
Nevertheless, Mahathir pursued higher education knowing full well of its importance while the latter never made in the Vienna school of arts and was loitering in the streets, doing menial jobs for sustenance.
While we can share more about both men's similarities or differences, one important point to note is that both men did not rise to power via military conquest or by some dubious means. Instead both were elected to power.
Dictators are not born, they are made by the people after creating certain emotional feeling over an issue that is close to the people's heart.
Hitler used the communists and the Jews as scapegoat in order to gain popularity among Germans, blaming them for Germany's defeat in World War 1. As nationalistic fever was high in Germans then, they swallowed his argument without even mincing it.
As for Mahathir, he worked on two strategies. When dealing with the outside world, he instilled fear among Malaysians of Western economic imperialism. When dealing with the locals, it was all about putting the fear among the Malays that they may lose political control to the non-Malays if they do not unite under his reign.
Both were master politicians and very Machiavellian in their ways.
Truth be told, Malaysians were fooled by the same “fear-generated political climate” perpetuated by Mahathir who knew his trade well.
While Germans have gained vast political maturity since Hitler days, unfortunately there are still Malaysians who are in awe of “Mahathirist politics” though he is no longer the premier.
We have organisations like Perkasa, Gertak and Umno itself still perpetuating nationalistic fear among Malays, citing the non-Malay threat to Malay domination.
Fortunately, many Malaysians of various races have wised up and dismissed such political rhetoric, knowing full well their words are nothing but to save their own political career, which is nearing its doom.
Ultimately, the people should wise up and study their leaders well before empowering them. We cannot undo the past but the next time a person shows up with the same traits, the people should decide whether to accept or reject them.
FMT
13/07/10
1 comment:
Hitler is a German. He was a racist and nationalist. Mahathir is an Indian. He wants to sell Kampung Bharu, which is the only traditional Malay enclave in the city. Buyers are most probably Singaporeans. I am not racist. But I believe a true Malay would not sell his or her own "soul" to foreigners.
Post a Comment