Lee's concept of democracy<\/p>\n
By Arief Budiman<\/p>\n
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Commenting on what is happening
\nin Myanmar, Singaporean elder statesman Dr. Lee Kuan Yew recently
\nstated that Aung San Suu Kyi would serve her country better if
\nshe remained only the symbol of democratic struggle.<\/p>\n
He argued that Suu Kyi wouldn't have the institutions needed
\nto implement a democratic system if she took over state power.
\nWhat she has is only international popularity, being a Peace
\nNobel laureate. The political institutions are in the hands of
\nthe military junta.<\/p>\n
Many people will see this as an anti-democratic and anti-Suu
\nKyi statement. Especially since it came from the former prime
\nminister of Singapore, not known as the champion of democracy.
\nLee is one of those Third World leaders who think that economic
\ndevelopment comes before democracy. He has proven this
\nempirically, making Singapore an economically developed nation
\nunder his strong leadership.<\/p>\n
So, as a democrat, my impression was negative when I first
\nread Lee's statement. However, later on when I thought it over,
\nthere may be something useful to be learned from the statement.<\/p>\n
Plato wrote that the best political system is not democracy,
\nbut autocracy. Autocratic government is more efficient and
\neffective. Individuals who are given freedom of choice, will use
\nit for egoistical purposes, and run in many different directions,
\ncrashing into each other and creating chaos.<\/p>\n
The state therefore would be better off with a single wise
\nperson, a philosopher. This \"philosopher-king\" would then act in
\nthe public interest, and teach morality to his citizens. This
\nview, mandating the power of the state over civil society, was
\nlater adopted by Hegel in the twentieth century.<\/p>\n
The problem is this: How does the state find the philosopher
\nto fill the highest position of power? And when there is a
\nmistake and a cruel and greedy person becomes the head of state
\n-- or vice-versa --, how do we correct this mistake when
\nunlimited power is already his or hers?<\/p>\n
This option is available in a democratic political system, but
\nnot in an autocratic one. Thus, although there are many problems
\nwith a democratic political system, most people seem to prefer
\nthis system. In a democratic country, decision-making can be slow
\nand wasteful, but the capacity to correct mistakes exists.
\nTherefore, democracy is considered the best of a clutch of bad
\nchoices.<\/p>\n
Lee, based on his own experience, is surely inclined to favor
\nan authoritarian system for Third World countries. For him, the
\nbest system is a strong state with \"a philosopher\" in charge. He
\nhimself was that man, the top leader of the Singaporean state,
\nwhere he ruled with iron hand for the benefit of the public.<\/p>\n
He created Singapore. From being just another poor Third World
\ncountry it became one of the richest countries in the world. His
\nbureaucracy is relatively clean. So, why don't other Third World
\ncountries emulate the experience of Singapore? Singapore has
\nproven that it is possible to create a prosperous country, in a
\nrelatively short time, under an authoritarian regime. The main
\nthing is to find \"the philosopher.\"<\/p>\n
However, Lee also sees, contrary to the Singaporean
\nexperience, that there are many Third World countries ruled by
\nirresponsible autocrats, both civilian and military, who have
\ncreated problems for \"their\" countries.<\/p>\n
Not only are human rights violated in such countries, but
\ncorruption is rampant and the countries stay poor. No political
\nmechanism exist to replace these corrupt rulers. As a matter of
\nfact, the Singaporean model seems to be more an exception than
\nthe rule, since there are many more countries that follow
\nauthoritarianism and end up in disaster.<\/p>\n
So is democracy the panacea? Not as such, and not in itself.
\nSome point out that when autocratic systems of government are
\nditched in favor of democracy, what follows is not necessarily
\nbetter. Often it is chaos. The experiences of the ex-communist
\ncountries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and also the
\nexperiences in some African countries illustrate this phenomenon.
\nChaos follows after the authoritarian ruler has been toppled.
\nPeople are \"free\" to start fighting and killing each other.<\/p>\n
Lee seems to point out an important thing. It is necessary to
\nprepare adequate institutions before the transition to democracy,
\nto control the transition. Otherwise, things may run wild. This
\nis what is lacking, according to Lee, in the case of Suu Kyi's
\nstruggle to create democracy in Myanmar.<\/p>\n
This view chimes with some Latin American social scientists
\nstudying the transition to democracy. They say there are two
\nstages: the crisis of the existing authoritarian regime, and the
\nconstruction of democracy afterwards. The forces that create a
\nregime crisis are not necessarily the same as the forces that
\nhandle the construction of democratic institutions. The first
\ngroup destroys the existing structure, the second builds a new
\none. These two tasks cannot be carried out by the same group of
\npeople, due to their very different nature. However, both are
\nneeded and have to be prepared for in the struggle.<\/p>\n
This position has been reflected in the above statement about
\nAung San Su Kyi. On the one hand he mentioned the need for a
\ndemocratic struggle, even if it is only symbolic. This will keep
\nthe democratic spirit alive. However, when democracy is
\nimplemented, certain preconditions have to exist. Adequate
\ninstitutions that can carry out the transition towards democracy
\nhave to be created first, in order to avoid the transition
\nprocess dissolving into chaos. The democratic political system
\nwill prevail after the transition has to be drafted. This is what
\nI think what Lee meant to say, when he was making the statement.<\/p>\n
Democracy is the child of idealism and morality. As a concept,
\nit is beautiful. To make it real, concrete infrastructure in the
\nform of institutions is needed. To create democracy from an
\nauthoritarian system, we need both, the revolutionary forces to
\ndestroy, and the conceptual and management skills to reconstruct.
\nOtherwise, things will run out of control, and rather than
\nproducing true progress to democracy, another authoritarian
\nruler, more repressive than the last, could emerge.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist and researcher based in Salatiga.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lees-concept-of-democracy-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }