Here is an article declaring a ‘good dictatorship’. It states that Singapore has greatly benefited economically and in turn, socially, from the dictatorship of Lee Kuan Yew.
It is clear that Singapore is rich because it is a dictatorship. Lee Kuan Yew’s dictatorship created political stability for Singapore, this aspect of political stability is needed for a country to modernize. Usual dictators do not invest much (if any) capital back into the state, however; ‘…enormous forced savings rate is one of the secrets of Singapore's incredible economic growth. The money goes into a Central Provident Fund, with which the government builds roads, schools, hospitals, and especially housing.’
This fits with the mentioned hypothesis that ‘too many checks and balances delay much needed investments/redistribution’. It is worth noting that before Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore was 'a war-battered British port on an island off the southern tip of Malaysia. It had a rapidly growing, poor, uneducated population living mostly in slums and houseboats'.
It is important to note that most dictatorships start out with promises of development, such as Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Zimbabwe under Mugabe, however, most personalistic regimes turn corrupt, as noted in this journal article (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1339972)
Would this then lend itself to the arguement that Dictatorships are not bad for counties that need an iron fist as such, to bring it back from the ruins of post war or bad governance?
ReplyDeleteI think it clearly can be a good thing but Singapore is evidently the exception and not the rule.
Dictatorships turn nasty before long despite their attempts at cover ups and previous good inentions. It appears maybe there is not so much what is "bad" about dictatorship regimes, but what is "bad" about the dictator?!
There is no doubt that Singapore has undergone huge economic growth under Lee Kwan Yew's leadership which has benefited the city state. Looking into this I began to wonder at what cost this economic growth has been acheived. According to Human Rights Watch many abuses are inflicted upon workers, in particular migrant domestic workers. These abuses unrealistic working hours and ridiculously low pay in comparison to Singaporean workers, if they are paid at all. Surely this is a deep flaw in Singapore's rule of law if not all people are treated equally. Is economic growth worth such abuses to a country's citizens?
ReplyDelete(http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/12/06/letter-dr-ng-eng-hen)
Such human rights abuses in Singapore have been greatly criticized by other states' governments. Lee defends his country's actions with the very contraversial Asian Values Debate. He says that Confucian cultures has great emphasis on the collective rather than the individual. He says his peaple, therefore, are will to sacrafice individual liberty for the collective advancement and good of the nation. Because of this he says such actions cannot be called human rights abuses as while they may be seen this way in the West they are not in South East Asian states.
Whether these are abuses of human rights or not it brings to light an interesting question. At what cost can economic growth be achieved? Is it worth forsaking your rights to participate in political activity in a dictatorship? Is it worth losing your right to freedom of speech? Is it worth the wellbeing of your citizens and workers? It also brings to light the question of whether or not some cultures are more suited to authoritarian reqimes.
Quick clarification; Singapore is no longer ruled by Lee Kwan Yew. His son I believe is the current Chief Minister; Lee is now "Senior Minister," but not involved in the day to day running of the government. He did rule Singapore for over 30 years, though.
ReplyDeleteMore corrections: Ok, so I looked it up instead of relying on my faulty memory. Lee was chief minister from 1965 to 1990, then he was "Senior minister" until 2004 (a sort of semi-retirement) and is now "minister mentor". Other people now control the main parts of the government.
ReplyDeleteThe writer Paul Theroux was very critical of Singapores government and the effect it had on the people in "Ghost Train to the Eastern Star", which chronocled his travels through the region. He said it was a place of cameras and snitches. Many books and films are banned. Talking to freely and failing to toe the government line, that Singapore is a clean, orderly, safe Shangri-la, meet with government displeasure and punishment. Autocracies make personal responsibility such a hazard that they produce nations of employees, not innovators. Autocracies may be able to manage strong economies but what they do not produce is a strong polpulace. A lifetime of toeing the line either weakens citizens or pushes their energy toward dissidence
ReplyDeleteWould strong economic growth mean that citizens are willing to tolerate authoritarian rule? This seems to be the case in China, although the current economic recession could change that.
ReplyDeleteI think that the possibility of economic growth is a strong incentive to accept authoritarianism, economic growth will bring power to the state and therefore they won't feel so vulnerable when up against the rest of the demmocratic world.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the culture of the countries counts for something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLyPpUsNkAE
ReplyDeleteinteresting interview on Lee Kwan Yew's justification
HKQ,
ReplyDeleteYou could post the video on the main page if you want - I think you may even be able to embed it.