Lee's concept of democracy

Lee's concept of democracy

By Arief Budiman

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Commenting on what is happening
in Myanmar, Singaporean elder statesman Dr. Lee Kuan Yew recently
stated that Aung San Suu Kyi would serve her country better if
she remained only the symbol of democratic struggle.

He argued that Suu Kyi wouldn't have the institutions needed
to implement a democratic system if she took over state power.
What she has is only international popularity, being a Peace
Nobel laureate. The political institutions are in the hands of
the military junta.

Many people will see this as an anti-democratic and anti-Suu
Kyi statement. Especially since it came from the former prime
minister of Singapore, not known as the champion of democracy.
Lee is one of those Third World leaders who think that economic
development comes before democracy. He has proven this
empirically, making Singapore an economically developed nation
under his strong leadership.

So, as a democrat, my impression was negative when I first
read Lee's statement. However, later on when I thought it over,
there may be something useful to be learned from the statement.

Plato wrote that the best political system is not democracy,
but autocracy. Autocratic government is more efficient and
effective. Individuals who are given freedom of choice, will use
it for egoistical purposes, and run in many different directions,
crashing into each other and creating chaos.

The state therefore would be better off with a single wise
person, a philosopher. This "philosopher-king" would then act in
the public interest, and teach morality to his citizens. This
view, mandating the power of the state over civil society, was
later adopted by Hegel in the twentieth century.

The problem is this: How does the state find the philosopher
to fill the highest position of power? And when there is a
mistake and a cruel and greedy person becomes the head of state
-- or vice-versa --, how do we correct this mistake when
unlimited power is already his or hers?

This option is available in a democratic political system, but
not in an autocratic one. Thus, although there are many problems
with a democratic political system, most people seem to prefer
this system. In a democratic country, decision-making can be slow
and wasteful, but the capacity to correct mistakes exists.
Therefore, democracy is considered the best of a clutch of bad
choices.

Lee, based on his own experience, is surely inclined to favor
an authoritarian system for Third World countries. For him, the
best system is a strong state with "a philosopher" in charge. He
himself was that man, the top leader of the Singaporean state,
where he ruled with iron hand for the benefit of the public.

He created Singapore. From being just another poor Third World
country it became one of the richest countries in the world. His
bureaucracy is relatively clean. So, why don't other Third World
countries emulate the experience of Singapore? Singapore has
proven that it is possible to create a prosperous country, in a
relatively short time, under an authoritarian regime. The main
thing is to find "the philosopher."

However, Lee also sees, contrary to the Singaporean
experience, that there are many Third World countries ruled by
irresponsible autocrats, both civilian and military, who have
created problems for "their" countries.

Not only are human rights violated in such countries, but
corruption is rampant and the countries stay poor. No political
mechanism exist to replace these corrupt rulers. As a matter of
fact, the Singaporean model seems to be more an exception than
the rule, since there are many more countries that follow
authoritarianism and end up in disaster.

So is democracy the panacea? Not as such, and not in itself.
Some point out that when autocratic systems of government are
ditched in favor of democracy, what follows is not necessarily
better. Often it is chaos. The experiences of the ex-communist
countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and also the
experiences in some African countries illustrate this phenomenon.
Chaos follows after the authoritarian ruler has been toppled.
People are "free" to start fighting and killing each other.

Lee seems to point out an important thing. It is necessary to
prepare adequate institutions before the transition to democracy,
to control the transition. Otherwise, things may run wild. This
is what is lacking, according to Lee, in the case of Suu Kyi's
struggle to create democracy in Myanmar.

This view chimes with some Latin American social scientists
studying the transition to democracy. They say there are two
stages: the crisis of the existing authoritarian regime, and the
construction of democracy afterwards. The forces that create a
regime crisis are not necessarily the same as the forces that
handle the construction of democratic institutions. The first
group destroys the existing structure, the second builds a new
one. These two tasks cannot be carried out by the same group of
people, due to their very different nature. However, both are
needed and have to be prepared for in the struggle.

This position has been reflected in the above statement about
Aung San Su Kyi. On the one hand he mentioned the need for a
democratic struggle, even if it is only symbolic. This will keep
the democratic spirit alive. However, when democracy is
implemented, certain preconditions have to exist. Adequate
institutions that can carry out the transition towards democracy
have to be created first, in order to avoid the transition
process dissolving into chaos. The democratic political system
will prevail after the transition has to be drafted. This is what
I think what Lee meant to say, when he was making the statement.

Democracy is the child of idealism and morality. As a concept,
it is beautiful. To make it real, concrete infrastructure in the
form of institutions is needed. To create democracy from an
authoritarian system, we need both, the revolutionary forces to
destroy, and the conceptual and management skills to reconstruct.
Otherwise, things will run out of control, and rather than
producing true progress to democracy, another authoritarian
ruler, more repressive than the last, could emerge.

The writer is a sociologist and researcher based in Salatiga.