After two years of legal chicanery, farcical procedure and naked political bias, the nine-year sentence imposed yesterday on Anwar Ibrahim is hardly surprising. But that does not make it any less shocking. From the very start, the sodomy trial of the former Malaysian Finance Minister and deputy to Dr Mahathir Mohamad was a nakedly political show, intended not to discover the truth of the accusation but to destroy the reputation and political career of Mr Anwar, whose crusade for political reform and against corruption struck a powerful chord with voters. The verdict was as predetermined as it is inexcusable. Mr Anwar himself summed up the trial in a single comment: sick. The trial has divided Malaysia more bitterly than for a generation, radicalised opposition and laid bare Dr Mahathir's contempt for democracy and determination to protect his power, his family and his cronies. Human rights activists in Malaysia spoke of a "real step backwards" and expressed sorrow for their country and its tarnished judicial system. Overseas comment has been equally outspoken. Lawyers representing the International Bar Association and the Commonwealth condemned the conduct of the trial. Even politicians in neighbouring South-East Asian countries, ever anxious to avoid diplomatic incidents, came close to condemnation.
None of this will disturb Dr Mahathir. The Malaysian Prime Minister has built a career on excoriating the West in the name of "Asian values". He has demonstrated a political ruthlessness that he may think amply justified by results: the snap election he called at the end of the first Anwar trial left the Opposition divided, Mr Anwar's Islamic supporters confused and UMNO, the ruling United Malays National Organisation, returned to power. Dr Mahathir has skilfully used authoritarian policies to persuade Malaysians that any change of course or democratic transparency would ruin the prosperity associated with his rule - and which was so nearly destroyed by the venality Mr Anwar criticised.
The roots of Dr Mahathir's vendetta lie not in disagreement over economic policy, but in the jealousy and suspicion of an elderly autocrat of a younger, ambitious man - who may well now be barred from public life for two decades. Such personal politics are all too common among rulers insulated by flatterers, past success and too long a time in office. But what makes the Anwar case peculiarly repulsive is the attempt to mask this political struggle with the impartiality of the courts.
Malaysia is not an unsophisticated nation where justice can be bought in the marketplace. It has had an established and respected judiciary and sophisticated legal system. Its educated middle class is fully able to see through the absurdity of Mr Anwar's two successive trials. During the first, he was beaten up in prison and his lawyer was charged with contempt. The prosecution case twice changed the date of the presumed sodomy offence and was allowed by the judge to rewrite the charges. For Mr Anwar then to be rebuked for not producing an alibi was pure Kafka.
Mr Anwar's wife said that her husband believed the sentence a small price to pay for democracy and the struggle for justice. She may have difficulty keeping alive the cause of a man made a nonperson by the State. But brave women have confronted state power elsewhere in Asia and achieved much. Dr Mahathir should not count on having buried the resentment of his autocracy along with Mr Anwar's career. Since the departure of President Suharto of Indonesia, Dr Mahathir is now Asia's longest-serving ruler; with this disgraceful trial, he forfeits his claims to respect.