With due respect: We need more freedom, Dr. Mahathir

Editorial

By Severino Frayna

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was right when he posited that the Philippines could not emulate the Western model of democracy, because having freedom without limits creates gridlock and imperils economic development. Indeed, Filipinos do not seem to possess the political maturity needed to make a free society work well – generally speaking. But with all due respect to the former Malaysian prime minister, the Asian model of leadership by a “benevolent dictator” is likewise the wrong model for this country. Instead, we Filipinos should fashion our own style of democracy, one that suits our history and culture.

The Philippines tried authoritarian rule under the late President Ferdinand Marcos. The results, as history reminds us, were tragic. When Marcos became president in 1965, the Philippines had a promising future and was ranked second in Asia after Japan. Marcos proclaimed martial law in 1972, prolonging his grip on power, and by the time he was ousted in 1986, the Philippines was the “sick man of Asia.”

Still, it is difficult to ignore someone like Mahathir, one of the most admired and longest-serving leaders in Asia. During his tenure, Malaysia prospered to the envy of many in the world. His vision brought Malaysia to the cusp of industrialization.

In his lecture at the University of Santo Tomas on Monday, Mahathir warned about the perils of choosing the wrong leaders. He quoted the moralist historian Lord Action’s admonition, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Leaders, even honest ones, are subjected to temptations that can mutate them into dictators, Mahathir said. And dictators cling on to power as long as they can, largely to protect themselves from justice and from retribution by those they oppressed while they were in power. That was the Philippine experience in the dark days of the Marcos regime.

Right on leadership

Unlike Malaysia, the Philippines has not been blessed with a leader like Mahathir, who willingly gave up power even when his people were not asking him to quit. We do not even have a strong and equally capable leader like Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, who offered a similar prescription to the Philippines when he visited Manila in the late 1990s – that Filipinos should have more discipline and less democracy.

What we need, according to Mahathir, are leaders who love their country and their people more than they love themselves. With that, we totally agree.

However, the burden of responsibility should not fall on the shoulders of one person or of even a few, like those elected to public office. Ideally, what we need is a generation of Filipinos who love our country more than they love themselves. We each have a responsibility of being a good and productive citizen.

Yes, many if not most of our leaders have failed us, have even taken advantage of us. We should learn from our mistakes or else be condemned to repeat them. Equally important is that we should live by the same high standards that we expect from those we elect into office.

As Mahathir said, democracy works well when people understand the responsibilities that come with freedom. That, too, should resonate well in a predominantly Catholic country like the Philippines. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. We each have a cross to bear. Granted, those with more in life should bear a heavier burden. But instead of complaining about the failing of others, we should each apply ourselves and focus on our own role as model citizens.

Quality education, laws that work

That being said, it takes more than good attitude to uplift the Philippines. In his lecture, Mahathir also spoke of the importance of education. He said Malaysia devotes 25 percent of its national budget to education and training. Also, Malaysians, like many other Asians, value education so highly that even the common folk in his country willingly sacrifice so that their children could obtain a college degree. For their part, the Malaysian students embrace challenges, travelling the world, even to non-English speaking countries that require them to study foreign languages, just to become competent doctors, engineers or some other professionals.

In this regard, the Philippines should be more like Malaysia. But it is regrettable to note that in the context of the K-to-12 debate, some have revealed how they view education as a burden instead of an investment.

Finally, we propose another ingredient of development not mentioned by Mahathir – the need for effective laws. The limited democracy model that Mahathir proposes requires the selection of certain personalities who possess the rare combination of a set of skills and moral invincibility.

Instead of politics based on personalities, which is the bane of Philippine governance, we hope to see a Philippines ruled by laws.

That the Philippines has good laws is a myth. Well-crafted laws are meaningless if they lack funding or if they have no “teeth” or are too complex or even contradictory to other existing regulations. The more realistic description is that the Philippines has very many laws, some of which are good – but obviously not enough to push the country at a faster pace of development and prosperity. Worse, many of our leaders have a propensity to break laws or behave as if they were above the law. And in some corners of the country, the law does not even exist.

A nation based on the rule of law seems consistent with Mahathir’s prescription. Laws erect boundaries that he alluded to, but they also guarantee basic rights and other freedoms not seen in autocracies. The focus on having effective laws may require overhauling our system, but that seems more realistic than praying for the coming of a political messiah.