Mahathir Divided Malays, Not United Them

For over four decades, Mahathir Mohamad has projected himself as the guardian of Malay unity. Yet his political legacy tells a very different story—one marked not by consolidation, but by fragmentation. In his relentless pursuit of dominance, Mahathir has done more to divide the Malay polity than any other leader in Malaysian history.

During his first premiership (1981–2003), Mahathir centralized power within UMNO and entrenched Malay political dominance through authoritarian methods. He championed affirmative action and Malay economic advancement—but only under his terms. Those who opposed him were sidelined or purged. His sacking of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 didn't just split the party—it triggered a political reform movement and the rise of a new Malay-based opposition.

After retiring, Mahathir made a dramatic return to politics in 2016, this time as an enemy of the very party he once led. He founded Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu), a new Malay-only party, with the explicit aim of defeating UMNO. His second premiership (2018–2020) saw him align with former rivals, but his reluctance to share power or groom a successor ultimately doomed the coalition.

Once ousted, Mahathir repeated the cycle: he formed another party, Pejuang, further splintering the Malay vote. Within a few years, his actions had helped create a chaotic political landscape where UMNO, PAS, Bersatu, and Pejuang all claimed to speak for the Malays—while competing against each other in increasingly bitter, multi-cornered electoral battles.

Throughout, Mahathir spoke often of “Malay unity,” but his deeds betrayed that rhetoric. His unity campaigns were typically veiled efforts to absorb rivals or regain influence. Far from uniting the Malays, he has repeatedly fractured their political representation for short-term strategic gains.

The result is a deeply fragmented Malay polity, no longer anchored by a single dominant force but pulled in multiple, often contradictory directions. Ideologically, culturally, and politically, Malay voters now face a confusing array of parties offering competing visions of leadership and identity.

This is Mahathir’s true legacy. He didn’t merely fail to unite the Malays—he weaponized their divisions. What he leaves behind is not a stronger Malay political voice, but a broken one, struggling to find cohesion in a landscape he helped splinter.

History will not remember Mahathir as the unifier he claimed to be. It will remember him as the architect of Malay disunity, a man whose personal ambitions repeatedly came at the expense of the very people he professed to serve.