For about 6 months in 2014, Pakistanis kept themselves on the road, in the hopes of a democratic government. And Singaporeans, on the other hand, are crying at the loss of their dictator. Perhaps, a benevolent dictator is what we all need.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His [Lee Kuan Yew] main contribution was to legitimize the idea that you can have progress without democracy, at least the kind with a robust opposition, critical press & changes of government. Mr. Lee was prime minister of his city-state for 31 straight years, brooking little dissent. Their People’s Action Party has held power since 1959.
“The exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined & disorderly conditions which are inimical to development,” the senior Lee once said.
Strongmen around the world applauded. Gulf State sheiks celebrated him. Russia’s Vladimir Putin was a fan. A succession of Chinese leaders sought his advice. If he could raise his country to riches without all the fuss & bother of democratic politics, why couldn’t they?
Even Western democracies sometimes wondered if he might have a point when he said that rampant individualism & cranky special-interest politics were holding them back.
The kind of leader that Mr. Lee personified – stern, fatherly, morally upright, far-seeing, a good shepherd to his flock – has enormous appeal even in a democratic age. If such a leader can deliver the goods, many would say, well, then, who cares about a free press or a critical opposition?
The trouble is that the world produces very few such leaders. Mr. Lee was all but unique, an incorruptible strongman who really did put country above personal gain. The “Singapore model” is a direct product of his personality. It is hard to think of a place that bears its leader’s imprint so clearly.
A brilliant, London-educated lawyer, Mr. Lee led Singapore to independence & immediately set about remaking it in his own image: tough, disciplined, pragmatic, self-reliant.
Mr. Lee opened the country to foreign trade & investment but held a choke hold on politics, keeping the media tamed & the tiny opposition cowed. There is no denying it: the formula worked. Singapore averaged 7% annual growth for decades, eventually surpassing its old overlord, Britain, in per capita income.
Singapore is hardly a totalitarian state ... Singapore is a billboard for what is often called soft authoritarianism.
Without the check of opposition, the scrutiny of a free media & the threat of being tossed out by the voters, most leaders descend along the familiar path to corruption & brutality. That Mr. Lee did not was a function of his character, not of the virtues of the Singapore model.
What calls itself benevolent dictatorship is usually a bust. China’s collective leadership has raised living standards, but at the price of enormous corruption & environmental destruction. Mr. Putin’s bare-chested rule is curdling into aggressive nationalism.
Mr. Lee’s government was the exception to the rule. His success, sad to say, is probably not transferable. He worked on a small canvas: an island nation of 5.5 million about the size of Toronto.
For better models of development, look to other Asian success stories. Taiwan & South Korea have graduated from authoritarianism to full-throated democracy without sacrificing any of their economic dynamism.
So praise Lee Kuan Yew, by all means. ... But don’t pretend he is a model. Strongman government without true democratic accountability usually ends in failure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His [Lee Kuan Yew] main contribution was to legitimize the idea that you can have progress without democracy, at least the kind with a robust opposition, critical press & changes of government. Mr. Lee was prime minister of his city-state for 31 straight years, brooking little dissent. Their People’s Action Party has held power since 1959.
“The exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined & disorderly conditions which are inimical to development,” the senior Lee once said.
Strongmen around the world applauded. Gulf State sheiks celebrated him. Russia’s Vladimir Putin was a fan. A succession of Chinese leaders sought his advice. If he could raise his country to riches without all the fuss & bother of democratic politics, why couldn’t they?
Even Western democracies sometimes wondered if he might have a point when he said that rampant individualism & cranky special-interest politics were holding them back.
The kind of leader that Mr. Lee personified – stern, fatherly, morally upright, far-seeing, a good shepherd to his flock – has enormous appeal even in a democratic age. If such a leader can deliver the goods, many would say, well, then, who cares about a free press or a critical opposition?
The trouble is that the world produces very few such leaders. Mr. Lee was all but unique, an incorruptible strongman who really did put country above personal gain. The “Singapore model” is a direct product of his personality. It is hard to think of a place that bears its leader’s imprint so clearly.
A brilliant, London-educated lawyer, Mr. Lee led Singapore to independence & immediately set about remaking it in his own image: tough, disciplined, pragmatic, self-reliant.
Mr. Lee opened the country to foreign trade & investment but held a choke hold on politics, keeping the media tamed & the tiny opposition cowed. There is no denying it: the formula worked. Singapore averaged 7% annual growth for decades, eventually surpassing its old overlord, Britain, in per capita income.
Singapore is hardly a totalitarian state ... Singapore is a billboard for what is often called soft authoritarianism.
Without the check of opposition, the scrutiny of a free media & the threat of being tossed out by the voters, most leaders descend along the familiar path to corruption & brutality. That Mr. Lee did not was a function of his character, not of the virtues of the Singapore model.
What calls itself benevolent dictatorship is usually a bust. China’s collective leadership has raised living standards, but at the price of enormous corruption & environmental destruction. Mr. Putin’s bare-chested rule is curdling into aggressive nationalism.
Mr. Lee’s government was the exception to the rule. His success, sad to say, is probably not transferable. He worked on a small canvas: an island nation of 5.5 million about the size of Toronto.
For better models of development, look to other Asian success stories. Taiwan & South Korea have graduated from authoritarianism to full-throated democracy without sacrificing any of their economic dynamism.
So praise Lee Kuan Yew, by all means. ... But don’t pretend he is a model. Strongman government without true democratic accountability usually ends in failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment