What makes Malaysia’s Mahathir a great leader

His eloquence, breathtaking knowledge of global affairs, and stubborn commitment to perfection secured him a spot in the pantheon of the great men of history. Some see him as the modern embodiment of Plato’s philosopher-king. But the Singaporean leader never had the chance to test his skills at ruling a 
conventional country with its own complex rural-urban dynamics. 
As the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who lifted more people out of poverty than any other leader in history, icily told Lee: “If I had only Shanghai, I too might be able to change Shanghai as quickly [as Singapore]. But I have the whole of China.”
In fact, as The Economist has noted, Singapore, at its moment of independence, was nothing like a poor backwater but instead a middle-income nation and a bustling 
entrepot, fortuitously perched at the convergence of global trade.
In short, any objective analysis would suggest that Singapore, even with a mediocre leadership, was almost destined to prosperity in the age of globalisation. In this sense, the Duterte-Lee comparison doesn’t hold much water.
One could argue, however, that Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad has more to teach junior peers such as Duterte. Mahathir ruled over a mid-sized country and, over two decades of his rule steered Malaysia, long torn by urban-rural and ethnic tensions, towards a modicum of industrialisation and upper-middle-income prosperity.
To be clear, social science teaches us to be sceptical vis-a-vis the hagiographical descriptions of leaders at the expense of appreciating the unique structural ingredients that made countries like Singapore and Malaysia successful in the late 20th 
century.
Both were strategically located nations (Malacca Straits) and benefited from the British tradition of bureaucratic excellence. 
Malaysia even had the added benefit of huge oil reserves relative to its modest population. 
In this sense, both Mahathir and Lee were lucky heirs of relatively well-positioned nations with robust institutional legacies.
It’s not authoritarian rule, but instead strong state institutions, as well as smart industrial and trade policies that define the success of nations. 
Even if you have the best leaders, weak state institutions and bad policies tend to doom nations to failure.
Yet, it’s also hard to dismiss the crucial role of human agency in shaping history. And this is why, for every enlightened authoritarian leader like Mahathir and Lee, one can find dozens of Mugabes and Gadhafis who condemned their nations to destitution and chaos.
Notwithstanding the horrors of his authoritarian past, what makes Mahathir a “great” leader is his dynamism on two fronts.

Momentous role
Politically, Mahathir, at the age of 92, played an unlikely yet momentous role – as the harbinger of the democratic transformation of Malaysia. In direct contrast to his authoritarian past, this year saw Mahathir leading a democratic opposition to power for the first time in the country’s 
history. 
As one of his advisers told me, he is expected to step down within two years, paving the way for democracy activists such as Anwar Ibrahim.
Instead of perpetuating himself or his family in power, Mahathir is focused on stabilising the process of regime change and holding the Najib administration accountable for its widespread corruption.
Geopolitically, Mahathir is now the leading voice against the “new colonialism” of China, cancelling up to US$40 billion in Chinese investment projects due to concerns over corruption, lack of economic viability, and exclusion of Malaysian labour and companies. Meanwhile, he is also standing up to Western hegemony and Donald Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric and policies. 
In this sense, Mahathir represents the true spirit of an “independent” foreign policy.
At once and at last, Mahathir may have become both the voice of freedom for his nation as well as of collective autonomy for smaller countries squeezed between the imperialism of the West and the East.