Leaders and Legacies

The passing of two prominent leaders in December of last year prompted my reflection on leadership and legacies: Manmohan Singh, former Prime Minister of India, and Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States. During their tenures, both leaders demonstrably strove to serve the best interests of their respective nations. Their political careers were marked by both successes and shortcomings. Nevertheless, both bequeathed largely positive legacies: Carter for his unwavering commitment to peace, human rights, and public service; and Singh for his role in India's economic transformation, coupled with his emphasis on inclusive growth and social welfare.

However, beyond their specific achievements and setbacks, both leaders are primarily remembered for their deeply moral and principled leadership. They were men of faith, but more significantly, they were deeply spiritual individuals. While engaged in the political arena, they maintained a distance from its inherent compromises. Though surrounded by corruption, they remained untainted by it, refusing to engage in such practices themselves. Both demonstrated unwavering fidelity to their wives throughout their long marriages. Ultimately, both sought to leave the world a better place than the one they inherited. This—more than their professional accomplishments—constitutes their enduring legacy: that of decent, principled men dedicated to positive change.

Why leaders should consider their legacy

A leader’s legacy is defined by how they are remembered and the enduring impact they have had on their organization, the people they led, and the broader society in which they operated. It encompasses not only their achievements but also the methods by which they attained them. A leader’s legacy is ultimately shaped by their character and the values and principles that guided their decisions and actions. Leaders have the potential to leave either positive or negative legacies.

All leaders should be mindful of their legacy. In fact, some leaders go so far as to hire ghostwriters to craft glowing memoirs in an effort to shape public perception and ensure they are remembered favourably. Sometimes, these efforts are attempts to put a shine on what is likely to be a tarnished leadership legacy.

Leadership is extensively studied, yet its full essence remains elusive. A vast industry exists around leadership training, offering key skills for aspiring leaders. However, it would be misleading to claim that such programs truly teach leadership, as leadership is ultimately shaped by an individual’s personality and inner motivations—factors that are often difficult to alter. Many leaders fail to achieve positive outcomes because of personal motivations and inherent personality flaws. A leader may possess excellent skills but still fall short due to a lack of positive leadership virtues. I have explored this in detail in a previous article (https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/sukudhew-sukhdave-singh_leadership-values-integrity-activity-6911557318014869505-Y869?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop).

When analysing leadership failures, it often becomes apparent that these leaders lack the foundational virtues that guide effective leadership. Two major obstacles are commonly to blame: ego and greed. As Mike Davis aptly stated in Thanatos Triumphant, "greed breeds reptilian minds." Leaders driven by such instincts are unlikely to prioritize the needs of those they serve over their own relentless pursuit of wealth and power.

All leaders, like all humans, are inherently flawed. Leadership is not about achieving perfection but about the ability to transcend personal weaknesses and foster an environment where positive change can flourish. I firmly believe that leadership rooted in strong values and virtues is essential for cultivating healthy and impactful leadership, and ultimately, shaping lasting positive legacies.

A "religious person" can be an individual with positive virtues and a strong moral compass (as both Carter and Singh were), but not necessarily so. In today's world, religion is frequently exploited by leaders to manipulate susceptible followers and conceal ulterior motives. The performance of religious rituals is a far less reliable indicator of a leader's core morality than their actions and conduct. Religious observance often manifests primarily in ritualistic practices and adherence to dress codes. True spirituality and morality are not expressed through outward displays of ritual and attire; rather, it is a leader's "internal religion" that is reflected in their principled behaviour and actions. In this respect, I would give many Malaysian political leaders an A+ for being religious but an F for morality.

Legacies of Malaysia's political leaders

Not all individuals who attain leadership positions are effective leaders, particularly in the realm of politics. When reflecting on Malaysia's Prime Ministers over the past 30 years, it is difficult to identify any substantial positive legacies they have left behind. If anything, our society has become increasingly polarized along ethnic and religious lines. The economy, too, has lost significant momentum since the Asian Financial Crisis, largely due to the prolonged neglect of necessary structural reforms.

While there were aspirations to build a united "Malaysian race," where all citizens would be treated equally, these ideals never materialized. Instead, these self-serving political leaders found it more advantageous to maintain divisions within society, which has left us with a legacy of communal politics. The manipulation of religion to gain power and wealth has been perfected and made into an artform in Malaysia. Today, religious extremism is overshadowing cultural moderation, and even the smallest of perceived slights are being magnified by those seeking to exploit these tensions for personal gain.

These leaders presided over the erosion of governance within the country, undermining the very institutions that could have ensured the nation's wealth benefited all citizens, not just the political elites. Under their watch, the country turned into a financial playground for the politically connected, where rent-seeking thrived unchecked. A once professional civil service was undermined by putting servile leaders in charge, and by its manipulation for political motives. The failure to implement necessary reforms is a damning indictment of their leadership, but even more unforgivable is how they deliberately weakened the nation’s pillars of strength for their own selfish interests.

The burden of their legacy weighs today on the shape of our society, the state of our economy, and the daily lives of our people.

Malaysians would rather move past the political leadership of the past, though these leaders, much to our collective chagrin, continue to resurface, often to stir further discord. Can any Malaysian truly take pride in the legacies of these leaders?

The current Prime Minister (PMX): A break from the past or more of the same?

For many Malaysians, the corridors of Putrajaya have come to symbolize short-sighted, self-serving, and often divisive leadership. The current prime minister had a unique opportunity to forge a new political legacy. After spending nearly two decades on the political sidelines, he had ample time to observe and reflect on the societal and economic challenges that have long plagued Malaysia. His speeches during his time in opposition painted a picture of someone deeply aware of these issues and committed to championing reforms for a better future for all.

Now, as prime minister, if he still holds those reformist ideals, he must act swiftly. His performance to date has fallen far short of expectations. In his pursuit of political longevity, the country has found itself mired in one controversy after another. His leadership, particularly in terms of public perception, has been increasingly questioned. While his Madani policy framework holds promise with its vision of a more progressive and inclusive nation, it currently remains a collection of aspirations rather than actionable commitments. Malaysians have seen too many such documents, filled with lofty goals but ultimately ending in unfulfilled promises. His former mentor and subsequent nemesis, for example, unveiled Vision 2020 with similar ambitions, yet the promises never materialised.

The prime minister's most pressing challenge is to convince a sceptical public that this time will be different; that he has the capability and determination to deliver on his promises. So far, his track record has not instilled confidence.

While the Prime Minister continues to discuss reforms, the perceived lack of tangible progress is eroding public trust. He is increasingly viewed as prioritizing international matters of limited relevance to Malaysia's domestic concerns and economic well-being. He appears to have a problem in communicating on economic issues, and in his other communications, he often appears to be defensive and evasive. Often times he comes across as a communal leader rather than his claimed "father of the nation." A particularly glaring contradiction lies in his professed commitment to combating corruption, juxtaposed with a proliferation of dismissed court cases involving politically connected individuals.

Accountability is a fundamental tenet of leadership. A leader cannot credibly deflect responsibility for failures onto others while simultaneously claiming credit for successes. This selective assumption of responsibility undermines public confidence in the leader. When bad things happen under a leader's watch, taking responsibility and accountability is expected. Given the substantial hope invested in him by those who elected him, his subsequent zealous courting and appeasement of those who previously rejected him is deeply disappointing. This strategy risks alienating his core supporters, who are rapidly losing faith in his promises and leadership, without necessarily gaining the support of his detractors.

Rather than forging a distinct leadership legacy by charting a new course for the nation, he appears poised to emulate his predecessors, whose legacies many Malaysians would prefer to forget. This failure to seize the opportunity for transformative leadership represents a significant lost opportunity.

But it is not just PMX who needs to worry about his leadership legacy. Many citizens had placed a lot of hope in the multi-racial parties, particularly the Democratic Action Party (DAP). However, being part of the government appears to have distorted that party's understanding of what is right and wrong, eroding the trust of those whose votes initially brought them to power. The reform agenda they championed has been side-lined. Perhaps, they view their unwillingness to rock the boat as a necessary compromise to keep in check the evil in the wings waiting to assume power. But the question remains: when that compromise comes at the cost of broken promises, is it truly worth it? What should be the legacy of a party when it has seemingly abandoned its core pledges, allowing privilege to hinder much-needed reforms?

When I survey the leadership pool and the potential future political leaders, hope fails me. The most critical element missing in our pursuit of a prosperous and progressive Malaysia is competent and enlightened leadership. This deficiency has consistently hindered our national progress, and it will continue to hold us back. Consequently, the legacy of our nation will inevitably mirror the legacies of its leaders.

The current prime minister still has a unique opportunity to establish a lasting legacy if he chooses to rise above the past and demonstrate a new caliber of leadership. However, to seize this chance, he must shift his focus away from his own political survival and instead prioritize the nation's well-being—something he championed when he was outside of power. Among the necessary reforms, one of his top priorities should be to create strong, independent institutions of governance. In a democratic society, no one should be above the law, and the Prime Minister's commitment to this principle must be beyond question.

If he accomplishes nothing else during his tenure, this must be his legacy. Politics in Malaysia is tainted by the perception that it is a quick route to wealth, with leaders willing to sacrifice the country's future for personal gain. Too often, politicians have prioritized their own careers, amassing wealth for themselves, their families, and their cronies at the expense of the nation. To combat this, the only viable solution is the creation of robust, independent institutions that can hold leaders accountable.

But such institutions cannot emerge without visionary leadership—leaders who put the country's future before their own ambitions. The question now is: can PMX demonstrate this kind of enlightened leadership? His legacy will ultimately be defined by the answer.