I

f history is anything to go by, then Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak better understand that the riots of Saturday, July 9, were merely ringing the bell for the final round of a fight in Malaysia between “rulers” and the “common people”. After decades of political suppression, the latter clearly aim at putting an end to a 54-year grip on power by the country’s ruling party.

The start of democratization or the “Asian Spring”, in all of Asia, perhaps, may be a foregone conclusion, but for governments such as the ones of Malaysia, Myanmar and China (to name just a few), history may well be their best teacher and advisor. Over the past 60 years, “people movements” around the world have proven to be an unbeatable force.

Going down the road of history, one could see that, in the 1960s, European students were setting up democratic movements. They were clearly dissatisfied with the world they inherited from their parents and in a bid to have “a say” in the way (their) universities were run and in support of the urban poor, in May 1968, they took to the streets.

The social unrest, ignited by the Paris Student Riots, brought a rather abrupt end to what seemed to be an unchallenged grip on power by Charles the Gaulle, who, so it seemed, by many in his Old Order clique were given a mandate to a presidency for life. In 1968, the people of France clearly triumphed!

The Spring of 1968 saw the birth of the US anti-War Movement in the US, a movement that actually organized its first rally in New York’s Time Square on May 2, 1964. Eleven years later, in 1975, the Vietnam War ended in a rather embarrassing defeat of a seemingly unbeatable American army by (North) Vietnamese peasants. The people of (North) Vietnam clearly triumphed!

From 1922 until 1989, from Moscow, the Communist Party indirectly controlled all levels of government in the Soviet Union and as far as power is concerned, many parallels can be made with the current government that rules the waves in Malaysia, Myanmar and China.

On Jan. 5, 1968, in Czechoslovakia, reformist Alexander Dubéek came to power and demanded reforms that grant additional rights to the citizens in an act of partial decentralization of the economy and democratization.

The so called “Prague Spring” was the first ever attempt by “common people” that were ruled by the Soviets and the Communist Party to change their lives for the better. Soon, in other Soviet Union states too, opposition against the leadership in Moscow grew. In 1991, the Soviet leadership saw its wings severely clipped and the Soviet Union finally collapsed. People’s power proved to be more powerful than feudal and power-hungry rulers. It truly is unbeatable.

In 1986, people’s power in the Philippines brought to an end a long-lasting dictatorship and grip-on-power by Ferdinand Marcos. Seemingly untouchable, after more than two decades, the opposition – that came from “the people” and that worked for “the people” – took control over a new future. Marcos fled!

In May 1998 the unthinkable happened when, after more than three decades of iron grip, Indonesia’s strongman Soeharto fell. After more than three decades, the people of Indonesia finally had stood up and had spoken. Now it was Indonesia’s turn for chance into a democracy.

Although, today, struggling with its new found status and having to deal with severe forms of corruption and political weakness of its leaders, Indonesia is now recognized as a democracy and an economic “powerhouse” and here too, overnight, people’s power turned out to be able to change the course of history.

In November 2010 and under pressure from the majority of “descent” people of this world, the military junta in Burma (Myanmar) signed an order authorizing the release of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who, for more than 15 years, was detained in a bid to prevent the “common people” from having a voice and from interfering in the military’s murky policies of suppression that are aimed at acquiring even more power and more wealth. Myanmarese surely are nearing their goal of being freed from military rule.

More recently, the first month of 2011 brought to light social unrest and anti-government protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, three Arabian countries that for decades were ruled by feudal and unscrupulous and corrupt leaders and their families and cronies, who were holding on to power by the formation of security rings close to their palace grounds. In many Arab states, the common people are gradually gaining ground in their battle for a better life and future.

Although brought to politics (and power) by huge sums of money and on the back of existing electoral pockets that are faithful to her brother Thaksin, by way of General Elections Yingluck Shinawatra stands the chance to prove her weight in gold as Thailand’s next Prime Minister.

Whatever Yingluck’s political future may be, at least the people of Thailand were given a chance to speak up and vote for the person they seem to trust. Outgoing Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gracefully congratulated Yingluck, and the defense minister said that the army accepted the result. So far, In Thailand, democracy and the common people clearly triumphed!

Actually, the latest elections in Singapore (May 2011) are the clearest example of how a “ruling party” can gracefully accept “power sharing”. The Island State elections clearly have shown a shift away from the ruling PAP (People’s Action Party) party in favor of a growing opposition block. With 60.1 percent of the votes, it was the PAP’s worst election outcome since Singapore became independent in 1965.

However, the gracious manner in which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reached out to the opposition and realistically addressed issues related to the party’s decline in popularity, shows a great sense of intelligence as well as a sense of reality and commitment and holds a promise for the betterment of all Singapore people, regardless of political preference.

Not only from history can Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak learn a lot about the lurking danger of not willing “to share power”, but certainly can he learn a lot about grace and dignity from the man whose party led Singapore from the day of its independence, that, by the way, resulted from Singapore’s expulsion from Malaysia and only after social unrest blossomed and eventually created disputes between the PAP and the powerful Alliance Party, then Malaysia’s strongest (ruling) political party.

Surely, like with Singapore, Prime Minister Najib Razak is not in the position of giving the Bersih 2.0 movement “a piece of land” and allow it to break away to become a “second” Singapore. Times have changed and the Bersih 2.0 movement finds rooting in all levels of Malaysian society.

With the founding of this movement, the unthinkable reality of “power sharing” for the Malaysian government has come to be an (unthinkable) fact from which there is no escape. It merely is the beginning of the end of a 54-year grip on power.