Oleh/By		:	DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD 
Tempat/Venue 	: 	IN NEW YORK 
Tarikh/Date 	: 	30/09/93 
Tajuk/Title  	: 	THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS 



           Leadership in the post-Cold War era:
                The Challenge of Change
Mr. Leslie Gelb, President of the Council;
Distinguished Guests;
Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I would like to thank the Council of Foreign  Relations
for  inviting  me  to  address this august body.  It is with
some trepidation that I put forward some of my  thoughts  on
the importance of world leadership in the post-Cold War era.
2.   Despite  the end of the Cold War and perhaps because of
it we are witnessing today the outbreak of serious conflicts
in  various  parts  of  the  world.    Age-old  ethnic   and
nationalistic antagonism, subdued by authoritarian rule, are
resurfacing.    Critical  international economics and social
development  issues   remain  intractable,   and  developing
countries  continue  to be  marginalised.  The world clearly
still needs strong leadership of the kind that looks  beyond
national boundaries.
3.   Yet when the G-7 met recently in Tokyo they were led by
'incredible'  leaders,  i.e. leaders  who  had  no  credible
support at home.
4.   Democracy  is supposed to mean rule  by  the  majority.
These government leaders had support-ratings  well  below  a
democratic  majority.   And  yet  they  represent  the  most
powerful democratic nations of the world.
5.   The world needs not just world  leaders  by  virtue  of
being  leaders  of  great  countries but decisive leaders in
world affairs.    These leaders  must  be concerned not just
with their own position but willing and able also to do what
is  right.
6.   In the rubble of the collapsed  'evil empire'  some  of
the most cruel wars are being fought.  A whole ethnic  group
is  being  exterminated in full view of everyone, aided by a
misguided arms embargo.   Hundreds of  thousands  have  been
killed and more than two millions forced to flee their burnt
towns and villages.
7.   In Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Nagorno Karabakh, in Abkhazia
and many other places, all these horrors are taking place.
8.   A leaderless world merely stands by  to  watch  without
extending a helping hand.
9.   In  the  field  of  trade,  leaders  merely  submit  to
domestic  pressures.   Policies are made purely  for  narrow
short-term  political  interest.   That  such  policies  are
damaging in the long-run are ignored.
10.  With  the  defeat  of  Communism  and,  for  the  small
nations,  the option to defect,  international relations  no
longer consists of counter offers in order to  win  support.
Choices are out.  Pressures and threats are in.
11.  And  why  are  strong  nations  and  world   powers  so
seemingly unable to handle even  simple  problems?  Why  are
they led by  such  weak  leaders?   At  the  hour  of  their
greatest   triumph  why  are  the  Western   democracies  so
unwilling and incapable  of  handling  even  small  military
upstarts like Serbia or Armenia?  Why are they  not  reaping
the 'peace dividends' following upon the  end  of  the  Cold
War?   Why are they leaving the world so leaderless?
12.  The answer may lie in the corruption of democracy.  All
these  nations  are  weak  in practically all fields because
they practise a distorted form  of  democracy;  a  democracy
that  stresses form rather than  substance.   Democracy  has
become an article of faith wherein its worship is  far  more
important than the practical results obtained from it.
13.  It is dangerous to make a religion out of an  ideology.
For 70 years the Russians practised Communism as a religion.
As such everything that was done in the  name  of  Communism
was  accepted unquestioningly.  Woe betide any non-believers
in their midst.
14.  As a result a country rich in resources populated by  a
highly  cultured  and advanced people was reduced to extreme
poverty and backwardness.
15.  It was obvious to outsiders that far from  distributing
wealth equally among  the  people,  Communism  was  actually
distributing  poverty.  The promised  'workers paradise' was
not materialising.  Instead  the  Communist  countries  were
becoming  hellish  dictatorships which oppressed the workers
in  particular.
16.  Still no one dared to question  the  ideology  and  the
system  that  went  with it.   No one dared to be a heretic.
Everyone had to be a faithful believer.  Even when what  was
believed  was  obviously  incorrect,  wrong  and  false -- a
believer had to believe, especially a believer in the  midst
of other believers.
To  question is not only heretical; to question is to invite
painful retribution, imprisonment and even death.
17.  And so Communism  went  on  inflicting  sufferings  and
damaging the economy of Russia  for  70  years.  It  took  a
cunning man to work his way up to the summit of  the  system
to  break it.
18.  It is clearly  dangerous  to  make  a  religion  of  an
ideology.   Now we are doing that  to  democracy.  Challenge
democracy and you will be branded a heretic.  Challenge even
the  esoteric  interpretations of democracy and the fanatics
will  be  after  you,  branding  you  as  an  unbeliever,  a
renegade.
19.  As  much  as  the  Communists  were   intolerant,   the
democrats,   particularly   the   liberal   democrats,   are
intolerant.  You risk excommunication if  you  question  the
wisdom of even the less fundamental of democratic practices.
You will be branded and hounded by the democratic press  and
the fanatical democrats.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
20.  I am a democrat and Malaysia is a  democratic  Country.
Americans will most  probably smile at this assertion.   But
we  in  Malaysia   will  continue  to  insist  that  we  are
democratic.  Our view is that  democracy is not a  religion,
that it is  merely  a  political  system,  that  it  is  not
perfect.  It is  not  a cure-all for social,  political  and
economic maladies.  Indeed,  democratic fanaticism  is  more
likely tocreate  social,  political  and  economic  problems
rather than cure them.  The  present  malady  assailing  the
western  nations,  the  weakness  in  their   leadership  in
particular, is due to democratic extremism.
21.  When democracy was first defined,  it  meant  merely  a
system of government by the people.  But since then many new
qualifications have been  added,  without  which  a  popular
Government  would not be regarded as  democratic.   However,
even if we take the basic simple majority, we will find that
most democratic Governments fail the test.
22.  A democratic government should really have more than 50
percent of the people supporting it.   In  the  West,  where
voter turn-out seldom  reach 50 percent, it is possible that
a  government, supported by 26 percent of the voters, to be,
'democratically elected'.  Such governments are usually weak
as desertion by one or two members would bring them down.
23.  In a multiparty system, there may be no party  able  to
get a majority.  A post-election coalition results in a weak
government  in  which  the bigger party lives in fear of the
smaller coalition partner.   Effectively  it  is  the  small
coalition   party  which  rules.    And  that  is  far  from
democratic.
24.   If the proportionate system is used the chances of any
party getting half the votes cast are very  remote.    Again
weak  coalitions  have to be formed or a minority Government
set up, hardly democratic and certainly weak.
25.  Excepting where an election gives a very  big  majority
to  the  party forming the government, the democratic system
is more likely to return weak governments.  Weak governments
will throw up weak leaders, concerned  more  with  placating
the   electorate   than   with  doing   the  right   things.
Governments  which  will  do  only  popular  things,  cannot
govern.
26.  The  majority of the people are not always right.   The
majority  of  Serbs  voted  for  the genocidal government of
Slobodan Milosevic.   And the majority  can  very  often  be
oppressive  of  the minority.  And so someone decided that a
democracy   must  accord  rights  to  the  minority  or  the
individual.  This is a  contradiction  in  terms  especially
when the exercise of minority or individual rights adversely
curtails  or  negate the rights of the majority.
27.  Today the facists are back.  They are a minority.  Left
to  them-selves  their  jingoism  is  likely  to  gain  them
increasing  support.  Remember how the Nazis came to  power?
Does a democracy uphold the democratic principle or  does it
deny democratic rights to a dangerous minority?
28.  In  any  society the rich must be fewer than  the  poor
people.  Of course some rich people are crooks.   But  in  a
market  economy the rich are likely to be the entrepreneurs,
the people who create  wealth  and  jobs.   Without  them  a
market economy cannot prosper.
29.  But  their  numbers  are  fewer  than  the  workers.  A
democratic  government   needs   votes.   Pandering  to  the
entrepreneurs, even though they may be in the right,  is not
going to be helpful to politicians.  It is more  politically
expedient to support the  more  numerous  workers.   And  so
wages and costs go up, and productivity and  competitiveness
go down.  This is certainly not good for a country competing
in the  world  market.   It  can  eventually  undermine  the
economy.  But it is democratic.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
30.  There are many more things wrong with the  practice  of
democracy.   The arrogance of power of the media before whom
the most powerful politician cringes.    The  power  of  the
trade   unions,  the  power  of  the  pressure  groups,  the
lobbyists,  the Non-Governmental  Organisations  (NGO),  the
local party boss.  Then there is the need to be transparent,
the  fear  of the intentional leak.  Even laws may be broken
in the name of democracy.
31.  When a leader is elected in  a  western  democracy  his
main  concern  is  to stay in power.  He has little time for
anything else.  If under the law he cannot stand again, then
he is regarded as a lame-duck President,  who  literally  is
lame.
32.  Is it any wonder that there  are  no  credible  leaders
from the western democracies?
33.  The  world  is  faced  with  many  problems.   We  have
political problems,  economic problems,  social problems and
problems  of international  relations.  We have a brutal war
going on,  massive starvation,  the plague of AIDS and other
diseases,   poverty,   terrorism,   refugees  and  migrants,
drugs,  dessertification, floods,  disasters and more,  many
more.
34.  To deal with all these we need strong  governments  and
strong leaders working together.  The U.N.  cannot  function
unless  strong  leaders  are  able  to lend their countries'
support.
Ladies and gentlemen,
35.  Everyone  agrees  that  the world is undergoing rapid
changes.
36.  To merely  accept  changes  and  to  adjust to them  is
almost  primitive.    We should be willing and brave  enough
to examine the changes and to intelligently  engineer  them.
Only  when  we  do  this  can  we say that we are facing the
challenge of change.
37.  The mere switch from Communism and the command  economy
to Democracy  and  the  free  market  is  not  enough.   The
problems  have  remained.    Unless we have an open mind and
are prepared to question all the things we have accepted, we
may not be able to tackle the  problems at the  end  of  the
Cold  War.
38.  Democracy and  the  free  market  is  not  a  God-given
system.  It certainly is not a religion.  It is only one  of
the devices to meet the problems of human society. We should
not  therefore  be  afraid to question all that we do in the
name of democracy.
39.  Majority    rule,   minority   rights,   freedom   from
oppression,  freedom  from  hunger,  freedom of association,
freedom  of  the  press  and  the   right  to  free  speech,
transparency, the rule  of  law  and  a  host of other ideas
and thoughts linked directly or obliguely with  democracy --
all these need to be examined.
40.  Remember  the Inquisition,  the  religious persecutions
which drove the European settlers to this country.  Just  as
the   settlers   believed   that   their  interpretation  of
Christianity was right, the Inquisitors and the  persecutors
believed that in persecuting they were obeying the tenets of
Christianity.  Who was right?  It cannot be both.
41.  Is  it  not  possible  that  there are today democratic
inquisitors and persecutors?  Is it not  possible  that  the
accepted  interpretation  of  democracy is as wrong as those
about Christianity in the days  of  Christian  extremism  in
Europe?    Do  we wait for centuries of sufferings before we
revise our ideas about the true meaning of democracy?  Think
of the countries  called  Democratic  Republic  and  Peoples
Republic.  The western democrats certainly do not accept the
democratic  credentials  of  these  countries.   Is  it  not
possible that the credentials of the Western democracies are
also questionable?  How democratic were they when they owned
huge empires?
42.  The time has come for rethinking the unthinkable.  That
is the challenge that faces us  today.    Unless  there  are
leaders  from  the  powerful  nations  willing to  face this
challenge, the world will be led by 'incredible' leaders.