Published in the New Straits Times
4th July, 2009
’100 days’ no more than a symbolic mark
Koh Lay Chin
(Sorry I had missed out an entire paragraph – cut & paste FAIL)
IN a mere week, it will be here. The 100th-Day mark. That big, fat and fuzzy benchmark that all presidents and prime ministers dread because they really, really want to get a good grade. But why 100 days? What exactly happens in that three-and-a-half months, and how did it come to fame?
There are some interesting 100-day markers. There is the Hundred Days Reform that took place in China in 1898 when reformist Emperor Guangxu instituted changes to turn the country from a monarchy to a modern, constitutional state. His efforts were eventually thwarted by the powerful Empress Dowager Cixi, who spearheaded a coup d’etat and threw him in prison.
There is the Hundred Days of Napoleon, which entailed the French leader’s return from exile to Paris, his subsequent defeat at Waterloo and his final banishment to the island of St Helena, where he died.
One is just downright disturbing — it took just 100 days for around 800,000 to a million Rwandans to be killed in the genocide of 1994. The maths works out to around seven people murdered every minute. But the main “One Hundred Days” standard which involves newly elected leaders comes from the actions of one Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), the US president who took that many days to kick start the New Deal. The New Deal was his grand plan to bring relief to the millions of Americans suffering from unemployment and poverty during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
In that time frame, he successfully ushered in initiatives and 15 major bills which were passed by Congress to stabilise the US economy, no mean feat. He did so with great speed because he understood that there was only a narrow window of opportunity after his election.
After this, the notion of 100 days took off in the public imagination, and has caused annoyance for leaders after him ever since.
George W. Bush’s team re-angled it to 180 days. John F. Kennedy, no slouch in the popularity stakes himself, did not want to be pressured by the myth and said in his inaugural speech that change may not even come in 1,000 days.
So the “Hundred Day” mark is actually an artificial benchmark that was popularised so leaders could show what they were made of. It is symbolically the time for them to enact plans and initiatives before the honeymoon ends, public opinion swiftly changes, and goodwill recedes. That is why critics of former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi express their disappointment over the fact that he did not quickly push his reforms through with the landslide “Go” pass he obtained from the electorate.
That lessons from the Great Depression have been revisited in recent times to deal with the current global downturn is also rather noteworthy when it comes to discussing leadership expectations.
The difference, as many would point out, is that unlike FDR or President Barack Obama, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has not had a red carpet start. Yes, like the two leaders, he has the unenviable task of steering the country through tough economic times. But unlike these hugely popular US presidents, right from the get-go Najib has been bogged down by perception. If this was a sprint competition, Najib had a weighted handicap to piggyback from the starting line.
How do you squander the 100-days’ goodwill when it seemed hard to find at times? I guess one could say that when people have such a rough start, the only way is up.
The burden of performance, it seems, actually flashes its spotlight even more intensely on Pakatan Rakyat’s work since last year.
Many Malaysians were ecstatic by the fact that their votes actually did give the mighty Barisan Nasional a major wake-up call last year.
Pakatan’s happy honeymoon, though, seems to have been rudely awakened by domestic realities this year.
One starts high, and one starts low. Could they meet in the middle?
Perhaps it may come down to an even fight in three or four years after all, when voters are more than ready to review their assessments.
All this fuss about the deadline leads me to wonder if opposition blocs that make it in watershed elections also have their own 100-day pressures.
Soon we will be seeing many analyses of the Najib administration’s progress as the nation’s sixth prime minister. It will be a sobering time for all to see if, what and how changes have been instituted, or if we have yet to see the fruits of his administration’s labour. On a personal note, the truth is that I don’t care whether it’s 10, 100 or 1,000 days. I just want us to be well on our way.
As people say time and again, it’s the quality and not quantity that counts.
© NSTonline http://www.nst.com.my
