Malaysian leader Dr Mahathir Mohammad was able and strong, in his 22 years at the helm he transformed his country from a backwater - famous only for tin, rubber and some of the short stories of Somerset Maugham - into a regional heavyweight, an economic powerhouse.

He brought Malaysia on the world map and when he spoke people listened. The West didn't like him for his outspoken views but, willy-nilly, had to put up with him.

What was the source of his strength? Did he put on a uniform and tog himself in commando boots to look tall and impressive? Besides prime minister, was he also chief of the Malaysian army? If not, what does this say about the passion nursed in Pakistan for combining the two offices, political head and fighting Caesar?

If my favourite white elephant, the National Defence College, housed in mock Roman splendour in Islamabad, would do a study on the subject, we might gather that Dr Mahathir got by on performance. He delivered stability and economic prosperity. That and not simply highhandedness or authoritarianism accounted for his effectiveness as a leader.

Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe has run an authoritarian ship. But he's also ruined his country's economy. That's why the West, especially Britain and the BBC (often two sides of the same coin), have found it so easy to rubbish him. America tried rubbishing Mahathir. But failed miserably because with a strong economy Malaysia was impervious to American pressure. Mahathir even told the IMF where to get off and lived to tell the tale.

On a visit to Kuala Lumpur at the time of the Anwar Ibrahim trial, then US vice-president Al Gore mouthed 'pro-freedom' slogans meant to pique Mahathir. A lesser person would have been fazed. Pakistan, programmed to catch cold when the United States sneezes, would certainly have been rattled. But Mahathir kept a straight face and ploughed on. His name lives. Who remembers Al Gore?

Remember the time at the beginning of General Musharraf's tenure when we begged Clinton, scheduled to visit India, to also come to Pakistan? After no little grovelling from our side, he condescended to spend a few hours in Islamabad and repaid our pains by reading out a lecture on television (one of his conditions for the visit) as to what was in the best interests of the Pakistani nation. His advice may have been sound but it was gratuitous. Pakistan's military leaders took it all lying down, grateful that the Big White Chief had at least come, if only to rap their knuckles.

Lest anyone be foolish enough to link Clinton's behaviour with love of democracy and distaste for militarism, this was nothing of the sort. Clinton through the State Department had warned the Pakistan army not to destabilize the Sharif government. This was a few days before October 12, 1999. But when Nawaz Sharif set about sacking Musharraf while he was sky-borne (flying in from Colombo) things took their own course and it was Nawaz Sharif who found himself sacked. Clinton's studied insults were meant to pay back Musharraf for not heeding his warning.

The main point, however, is different. Would Mahathir have begged any American president to come to Kuala Lumpur? Would he have suffered gratuitous insults in silence?

The National Defence College again to the rescue: what makes a country strong? A huge military establishment whose upkeep you can barely sustain? Or economic performance, education, visionary leadership?

But nothing daunts our courage. Our own house may not be in order but how free with advice we are to the outside world. At the Islamic Conference recently held in Putrajaya, Gen Musharraf gave a blueprint for reforming the Muslim world.

During his recent visit to Beijing he gave another blueprint for reforming the Asian countries. In between his arduous overseas journeys, Pakistan's generalissimo might spare a thought for reforming some of the mess at home. Unless of course we're all converted to the view that charity should not begin at home.

Another foreign policy virtuoso, Foreign Minister Kasuri who's constantly touring abroad, on a trip with no beginning and no end. It's hard to say where he is at any given moment. You merely catch fleeting glimpses of him, now meeting Jack Straw, now Chris Patten, now some other worthy. Hand it to him for stamina if nothing else.

Meanwhile back at the ranch a disconcerting comparison: Iraq's Governing Council seems a more dynamic body than the Jamali cabinet. The Governing Council, a bunch of carefully chosen toadies, at least had gumption enough to say 'no' to Turkish troops for Iraq. The Jamali cabinet would commit collective hara-kiri before being guilty of similar independence.

Which, one would suppose, suits the Jamali government's godfathers in GHQ and the ISI just fine. When they set about creating a political facade for the regime, independent behaviour was the last thing on their minds. They weren't about to repeat General Zia's mistake.

The general wanted a democratic facade but ended up getting an obstreperous prime minister and a parliament unwilling to dance to his tune. Things became so bad Zia eventually had to demolish his own structure. One look at the Jamali cabinet, the Q League and present parliament and it's easy to see how the army's political engineering wing, about the most active of all its departments, has got the tame system it wanted.

Don't be misled by the shouting and desk thumping in the National Assembly. Even if total calm were to return to that august body, it would still remain a talking shop while the main business of the republic was conducted in the presidency. When legislators invoke the words 'parliamentary sovereignty' you could be forgiven for thinking they were chanting a religious mantra, such is the fervour they bring to the task. But when was the last time we saw any parliament 'sovereign' in Pakistan?

But not to worry, there's good news around the corner. The political scene may be fractious, and that too because of the politicians and their innate love of disorder, but the economy is picking up. Foreign exchange reserves have risen, haven't they? Of course they have but after listening to Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz's hope-filled monologues on the subject, it would be good to know for a change how these reserves are going to be translated into jobs and more investment. But we are at the take-off stage and should soon be reaping the dividends of our good fortune. We might well indeed, except for the nagging thought that if an aircraft took so long to take off few would rate highly its chances for making it to the skies.

When Gen Musharraf arrived on the scene he promised some kind of a revolution, a trip into the future. If it's any trip we've taken these past four years it's into the past: old problems revisited, the very political leadership the new regime was discrediting resurrected.

How does the national political map read these days? On the one hand, we have GHQ and its smart political engineers, their indefatigable endeavours to reinvent the wheel always bringing to mind Munir Niazi's immortal verse which so well describes the Pakistani condition: "harkat taiz tar hai, aur safar ahista ahista" (frenzied movement but journey slow-slow). On the other, the same political cast we had four years ago: Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. With two added variations.

(1) Asif Zardari, hitherto famous for other things, now transformed into political martyr because of his steadfastness in jail.

(2) A new star on the political firmament, the Mullah-Mullah Alliance, something the nation, given the excess - nay, the glut - of piety in its collective life, could have done without.

Journalists are often advised to be 'positive', to go slow on cynicism and stress news calculated to raise national spirits and give a shot in the arm to national morale. Which is very uplifting and patriotic except that, periodically, it would help to know what exactly to be cheerful about.