July 19, 2011 | By MOHAMED WEHLIYE

Last month, I visited Malaysia. On the day I was touring the beautifully planned Putrajaya city, the federal administrative centre that is located within the Multimedia Super Corridor, the town was also hosting the 10th Langkawi International Dialogue, a Malaysian driven innovative approach to creative cooperation between government and other sectors.

Among those attending the event were a Kenyan delegation led by Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka.

As I admired the beautiful city, I wondered what was going on in the minds of the Kenyan delegation members and in particular presidential hopeful Musyoka.

Here is a country that was at the same stage of economic development as Kenya back in 1974 and which, like Kenya, had an agriculture dependent economy but is now playing in another league all together.

Of course, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why. The Malaysians had 22 years of Dr Mohammad Mahathir pragmatic leadership; we had 24 years of Mr Daniel arap Moi. Under Dr Mahathir Malaysia — a primarily agricultural economy dependent on tin, rubber and palm oil — emerged as one based on technology and knowledge with a sound infrastructure.

The country turned around economically, the purchasing power of the common man rose and political stability and democracy (though flawed in Western perceptions) flourished.

Former coloniser

The story is the same in neighbouring Singapore where Lee Kuan Yee, in a period spanning 31 years, oversaw the economic growth of a country with a land area smaller than Nairobi to enjoy a per capita income greater than Britain, its former coloniser.

Mr Musyoka must have been wondering whether he could do the same if he became president of Kenya.

To the vice president and the other presidential aspirants though, I would say forget it. They might add a little here and there to our future prosperity, but they cannot match what Dr Mahathir and Mr Kuan Yee did. This is not to doubt their ability and vision for Kenya, but because under our current constitution they will not have both the authority and time to translate their visions into reality.

It takes time for any plan or policy to be implemented and to show results.

If one has only two terms to serve as president, the first half of the first term is probably spent on learning the job while the second half is used to win over voters in anticipation of winning the second term.

One will also not have the time to complete work started, hence the risk of starting projects that someone else will complete and claim credit for.

Former US president Bill Clinton reversed deficits that were the legacy of his Republican predecessors and brought back financial sanity to Washington, only to be reversed by his successor, George W. Bush, who brought financial ruin. No wonder, Americans are now debating whether to remove the term limit on the only office that currently has one, the presidency.

The foundations of almost all successful economies is laid by visionary leaders who had both time and authority to undertake economic reforms and translate their dreams into reality.

The US witnessed unparalleled growth under President Franklin Roosevelt who — prior to the introduction of term limits — created institutions that survive to date and laid the groundwork for America’s future prosperity and well-being.

Modern times

On a lesser scale, and in more modern times, Margaret Thatcher also provided transformational leadership.

Dr Mahathir and other Asian leaders, despite being branded autocrats, did bring prosperity and stability to their nations.

These gentlemen saw themselves as chief executives rather than presidents of their countries. The CEO of a company exercises authoritarian power of which a politician can only dream of. Their companies were Malaysia Inc and Singapore Inc. They were ruthlessly meritocratic.

They had almost absolute authority but one which they utilised for the good of their people. Dr Mahathir, a medical doctor, believed that just like a good doctor would force medicine down the throat of a patient, a developing nation must always take its medication, whether the patients (its people) want to or not.

In our case, even though we are a developing nation no good doctor can stay with us long enough or force medicine down our throats because our constitution does not allow it.

Bad experience

Because of the bad experience we had under the Moi regime, we got ourselves into a kind of Hobbesian dilemma. Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher, believed that if you give leaders enough power to enforce laws this would also give them the power to break the same laws.

We panicked and cut and pasted provisions of constitutions of countries that only require fine-tuning of their economies, rather than visionary leadership and economic transformation.

In the process, we became a third world country with a first world constitution that limits both the authority and term of its president.

We threw out the good with the bad. That is why we will never have a Dr Mahathir or a Kuan Yee.

Wehliye is the vice president, Financial Risk Management, Riyad Bank, Saudi Arabia. mwhussein@hotmail.com

News Link