A POLITICAL crisis demands extreme measures. Faced with the seemingly impossible odds of beating Barisan Nasional in a general election, it was expedient and deemed necessary to turn to a former opponent for inspiration and leadership.

After all, there are still those in Pakatan Harapan’s higher echelons who maintain faith in the one they used to label a dictator and corrupter. If not Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who else would it be?

He was PH’s only “hope” against Najib Razak’s abuse of power, never mind the damage the former had done to the country’s political institutions. If only critics would stop reminding Malaysians of Op Lalang in 1987, the 1988 constitutional crisis or Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking in 1998.

PH argued that accepting Dr Mahathir into its fold would attract the much-needed Malay vote to eat into Umno’s support. The shock victory that happened afterwards appeared to vindicate the faithful’s belief in Dr Mahathir, and the under-reporting of the poor performance of his Bersatu was swept under the carpet amid the nation’s euphoria.

Of the 52 seats the party contested, it managed to win a paltry 13. With the exception of Langkawi, Jerlun and Kubang Pasu, the remaining 10 seats are not considered Malay-dominant.

Electoral data suggested that Dr Mahathir’s much-vaunted Malay influence was confined to Kedah, and at best, Johor as well. Moreover, PH was decimated in the Malay-dominant Kelantan and Terengganu, where it did not take a single parliamentary or state seat.

While there was a possibility that BN might not have lost if Dr Mahathir had not led the opposition at the time, he was not the most important component of PH’s victory. Rather, BN suffered at the hands of its own hubris by hoping voters would overlook Najib’s abuse of power and mismanagement of 1Malaysia Development Bhd. Najib also mistakenly believed that three-cornered fights would harm the opposition, but instead, they benefited both PH and PAS. The pact won the protest votes in the west coast, while the Islamist party enjoyed the same in the east coast.

BN lost the elections not because of Dr Mahathir’s leadership in itself, but because he struck gold when he was made leader of the opposition just when BN was at its weakest. The “Father of Modernisation” was turned into the “Father of Democracy” as he basked in the fame and glory of ostensibly steering the country towards a peaceful transition of power for the first time.

PH’s win should have heralded its promised progressive reforms, or as it had always espoused, doing things differently than BN. And, the two-year limit on Dr Mahathir’s tenure was commended. But apart from abolishing the goods and services tax and lowering the voting age, the PH government did not have many other legislative or reform achievements to distinguish itself from the previous regime.

PH can shield itself from blame by alleging the civil service’s obstinacy and the workings of a deep state for derailing its reform efforts, but the buck does not stop at the now former prime minister, who previously had the civil service and police at his disposal for more than 20 years.

Having conceded that the victory over BN was a fortuitous event, Dr Mahathir proceeded to dismantle PH’s manifesto, saying it was not meant to be binding, but served merely as a guide for the government. Such an undemocratic and contemptible statement was rightly criticised and ridiculed by Malaysians, except for PH politicians. The pact preached patience and tolerated its prime minister because after all, this was the leader who “single-handedly” brought it to Putrajaya.

There is no denying that shutting down the Lynas plant was wholly agreed by PKR, DAP and Amanah, but then, Dr Mahathir and Bersatu had their say. Under the PH government, Lynas was allowed to continue operations, and the finance minister publicly admitted that he and the cabinet had failed to dissuade the prime minister. Did the non-Bersatu ministers suddenly dig up the merits of refining rare-earth minerals, or were cabinet decisions made unilaterally rather than collectively, as they are supposed to be?

PH promised us a prime minister who was first among equals, but instead, it delivered one who was first without equals.

Accepting Umno defectors into Bersatu, the Malay economic agenda, the controversial appointment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief and the third national car project – policies that reeked of Mahathirism increasingly defined the clueless PH, and ensured critics never ran out of ammo against the government.

Despite its prime minister deviating considerably from the pact’s consensus, PH persisted with Mahathirism while clinging to the hope that he would retire as soon as possible. Statements by Bersatu MPs that the two-year tenure limit had been voided and Dr Mahathir’s declaration that he was prepared to stay on for longer were a harbinger of things to come. But PH kept the faith, as having depleted its political capital defending its controversial leader, faith was all it had left.

Enter the “Sheraton Move”, where a political coup spelled the end of the PH government because of one man’s unilateral decision to resign from the cabinet. Dissatisfied with even PH’s subservience, and sensing the opposition’s support for him to remain in office, Dr Mahathir accepted the role of caretaker prime minister to buy time for MPs to bend their knees, so that he could be installed as a prime minister with presidential powers, unchecked by the cabinet and unaccountable to Parliament.

It should’ve been as clear as day that Dr Mahathir harboured no intention of passing the baton to Anwar – another broken promise – and his subsequent disparaging remarks on the PKR president testified to this. With his gambit falling apart and the prospect of Muhyiddin Yassin becoming prime minister growing inevitable, Dr Mahathir swivelled back to PH for support. And the pact fell for it hook, line and sinker. Again.

The coronavirus has put a halt to politicking, offering PH the opportunity to reflect on the political crisis of two months ago. While it is debatable that Mahathirism, or just the man by the name of Dr Mahathir, had brought PH victory, lasting damage has undeniably been done to the pact and 20-year reform movement.

Ironically, all this happened while PH was in power. PH promised us change, but it appointed a leader who was the most resistant to change.

If there is any lesson to be learnt from the Sheraton Move, let it be this: Dr Mahathir has always been more interested in his own agenda than the nation’s. For PH to have a fighting chance against Perikatan Nasional, it has to divorce itself from Dr Mahathir and Mahathirism once and for all, and start rebuilding the trust it had among voters prior to his intervention.

But sadly, judging by how Anwar has seemingly resigned himself to being only the PH leader, and has not been declared the opposition leader in Parliament, Mahathirism is still very much alive and kicking in PH. – April 27, 2020.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.