Democracy needs impetus and mechanisms

By Adam Zach

SINGAPORE (JP): In a recent commentary piece in The Jakarta Post, Arief Budiman tried to rationalize Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's statement that Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi would serve her country better if she remained a "symbol behind a fence".

He also tried to support his arguments by a misinterpretation of Plato's political philosophy as espoused in the Republic.

Budiman's contention in essence was that in order for Myanmar to make the transition to a democratic state, it had to have "adequate institutions" in place before this transition could be enacted.

He also said that a nascent democratic state would benefit if it had a wise and tough "philosopher-king" to run it as was the case with Lee and Singapore.

But there are some distortions here that must be set straight.

It is not without surprise that many people who support authoritarian regimes keep quoting and taking Plato's Republic out of context, as the great philosopher had indeed seemed to set up a case for rule by a super-elite in an ideal system of governance.

First, let us be clear what the Republic is about. The Republic uses the form of myth to explore what constitutes knowledge and learning and what that by extension means for the state.

Plato shows that knowledge is innate and that wisdom and leadership is inborn and cannot be taught in the conventional sense. He claimed that leadership was an art and it was the job of teachers like Socrates, who was Plato's own guru, to bring that innate knowledge of leadership out of the pupil.

The eventual logical extension of Plato's argument was a highly structured society divided into the Ruler class, the Warrior class and the Working class, similar to the that of the ancient Hindu class system.

Plato likened this system to a man's souls which had reason, spirit or passion and appetites. The ideal man was a balance of these three components.

But Plato allowed for people to move from the various stratas of society if they had potential to be warriors or "philosopher- kings".

Nowhere does he state, as Budiman claims, that the "best political system is not democracy but autocracy". Plato was an intellectual and was looking at the possibility of an ideal state, he was far too brilliant a man to imply that states could actually be modeled on the Republic or that the world should indeed be run by "philosopher-king".

In fact, his teacher Socrates was condemned in 399 B.C. to death by drinking poison by the State because he would not renounce his teachings of freedom of speech and thought which had influenced the young in Athens. A point forgotten by Budiman.

Budiman's disclaimer of being "a democrat" who agrees with Lee's idea of severely 'guided democracies' is as valid as one who says the public should not have access to arms, but agrees with the argument that banning weapons on the street will not be effective because weapons do not kill unless someone pulls the trigger.

It would also be healthy for all proponents of autocratic regimes to read the late Sir Karl Popper's renowned seminal work, The Open Society And Its Enemies, which took Plato to task for seemingly showcasing autocratic systems in his famous work.

But he was principally referring to Plato's Republic.

Plato, however, had written numerous treatises. What many, including Budiman, seem to be unaware of was that towards his twilight years Plato had written a master work that revised his ideas in the Republic.

Having finally served under a tyrant, Dionysus II of Syracuse, Plato wrote his last and less notorious piece, Laws.

In Laws, Plato gives his final and mature thoughts on what constitutes good government. It is no longer rule by a bunch of "philosopher-kings" but rule according to a framework of laws to fall back on for governance of the State than to be at the mercy of "enlightened" dictators.

That is where the second part of Budiman's piece comes in. No one will argue against the idea of having relevant mechanisms in place before an authoritarian system progresses into a more democratic one.

But the fallacy begins when one then states that Aung San Suu Kyi should remain behind a fence until those mechanisms are in place. And pray tell who is to unilaterally decide to build those transitional institutions? The Myanmar military junta? Rather unlikely.

If the Myanmar junta now thinks, however vaguely, of a transitional system towards democracy, it is because an Aung San Suu Kyi exists. The Lady, as she is referred to by the common people in Myanmar, is the catalyst that has started the process where the transition to democracy can now begin to take place.

To say that democracy should take place only when the mechanisms are in place is a classic example of a circular argument. There is no way to create institutions in preparation of democracy until there is an impetus towards democracy.

For Budiman to state that what Lee meant by Aung San Suu Kyi remaining behind a fence was that she could thereby "keep the democratic spirit alive" is simply naive. Lee is no democrat. Budiman himself wrote of Lee as "the former prime minister of Singapore not known as the champion of democracy." Lee would like to see Aun San Suu Kyi firmly in place where he believes she belongs, at home.

Otherwise why did her supporters burn Lee's effigy in public in New Delhi not too long ago soon after he made that remark about her?

Yes, there is the risk of instability and chaos, but that is the price any country pays for a revolution. But that does not mean that if Aung San Suu Kyi were to be allowed to share power in Myanmar with the military junta, there would be violence.

Most reasonable people would agree that to demand an overnight change in Myanmar's political scene would invite trouble. But that is not an excuse to stall change. Change is constant. As the ancient Greek thinker Heraclitus said: "Nothing is permanent, except change." The point is how to manage that change.

The solution for Myanmar at this stage is for both Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters to sit down and speak with the military junta. The junta has to concede that for gradual non- violent change to take place, they must work towards setting up the transitional institutions for change together with the Lady.

Aung San Suu Kyi too has to realize that she and her supporters should not appear as a threat to the very existence of the junta by hoisting them from the center of power. She has to assure and show them that she would be willing to share power and, together with the military, work towards making Myanmar the modern economy it deserves to be.

Her father and Myanmar's national hero, Aung San, would demand no less.

The writer is a Singapore-based journalist.