Menu
Menu
Even Lee Kuan Yew, often regarded as the global icon of "benevolent" dictatorship, was known to favor and advocate for the creation of a policestate where legal protections were set aside. “Repression…is a habit that grows,” said Lee addressing Singapore’s British chief minister David Marshall in the island’s colonial legislative assembly. “I am told it is like making love - it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done." Authoritarianism inherently carries the design flaw of repression of a police state! Secondly, within an authoritarian framework, a singular point of failure exists. If one person is vested with the authority to make all decisions and that individual, whether from the outset or over time, exhibits unhinged conduct due to the concentration of power, the question arises: what recourse or solution is available? The absence of checks and balances in a one-man governance system exacerbates the potential consequences of a single point of failure, underscoring the precarious nature of authoritarian regimes.
Ironically, the centralization of all power in the hands of one person for delivering stability and order ends up creating a regime dependent on the safety and sanity of one individual, which becomes a recipe for instability. That design flaw is inherent in all authoritarian regimes. Lastly, there is overwhelming evidence that plural democracies not only outlast but also outperform authoritarian regimes. Benevolent dictatorships often treat their people as a flock in need of urgent protection, rather than as moral beings deserving dignity and respect. Authoritarian regimes that curtail and constrain human freedoms are not sustainable in the long term, as human existence transcends mere material needs. That is why plural democracies have demonstrated greater longevity, outlasting the short-lived experiments associated with authoritarian regimes. Moreover, plural democracies have consistently yielded more sustainable human development and advanced scientific knowledge compared to authoritarian regimes. Indeed, in light of the well-documented design flaws of low sustainability and productivity, our elite’s enduring fascination with authoritarian systems appears downright irrational.
Democracy adopts a pluralistic approach, making incremental allocations of limited authority for defined periods among multiple individuals who are mandated to engage in consultation. Grounded in human history, this plural system acknowledges the intrinsic design flaws present in regimes where individuals wield unchecked power. Instead of relying on the "benevolence" of a single leader, democracy dismisses the idea of vesting absolute power in one person. It operates as a safeguard against potential risks associated with the concentration of power in the hands of an individual, prioritizing collective decision-making and the dispersion of authority. The aspiration for a "benevolent" dictator echoes Plato's concept of a philosopher-king. However, considering the inherent design flaws of authoritarianism, contemporary political philosophy has moved beyond Plato's elite vision of governance by a select few deemed "saintly." The modern approach to political philosophy has shifted from the question of "Who could best rule?" to "What system prevents the worst rule?" In acknowledgment of the flaws embedded in authoritarianism, human societies have devised a governance system founded on checks and balances, coupled with the separation of powers. This alternative system, commonly known as democracy, is based on the fundamental principle that even individuals of apparent virtue should not possess unchecked control over all levers of power. Even though the cumulative weight of evidence from human history shows that the one-man rule does not work, and our history reaffirms the same, our elite want to keep rolling the dice hoping that one day we will have our saintly governor who will change our fate. Gambling with people’s fate by continually playing Russian roulette is not a rational solution. Our elite's fascination with and romanticization of the "benevolent" dictatorship is not only based on flawed assumptions but is also self-serving, providing a rationalization for the current elite capture of national power and resources. Democracy adopts a pluralistic approach, making incremental allocations of limited authority for defined periods among multiple individuals who are mandated to engage in consultation. Grounded in human history, this plural system acknowledges the intrinsic design flaws present in regimes where individuals wield unchecked power. Instead of relying on the "benevolence" of a single leader, democracy dismisses the idea of vesting absolute power in one person. It operates as a safeguard against potential risks associated with the concentration of power in the hands of an individual, prioritizing collective decision-making and the dispersion of authority. Can we risk falling for another superficial and hollow promise: the proposition that allowing the concentration of national power and resources in the hands of the elite might yield a "benevolent" dictator capable of producing governance and economic miracles akin to those observed in East Asia?
We have yet to fully realize the benefits of the imperfect yet perfectible plural system. Our encounters with what purported to be democracy often involved a facade of control or manipulation, resembling a puppeteering and shadow show where, in reality, one-man authoritarianism operated covertly in the background. Such pseudo-democracy experience has prevented us from understanding how a genuine democratic system could work and deliver its potential benefits. This experience likely contributes to the skepticism held by many, casting doubt on the effectiveness of such a plural system. It is high time we tried non-hyphenated democracy; it may not be as bad as our elite portrays!
Our aspirations to replicate the progressive accomplishments observed in East Asia will remain elusive until we address two fundamental impediments: our exorbitant security costs and the absence of a meritocratic governance model. The resolution of these foundational issues is imperative for any meaningful economic take-off. Once these critical impediments are successfully surmounted, we must prioritize the replication of a key pillar of the East Asian model: investments in human capital. The glaring reality is that a workforce composed of malnourished and unskilled individuals can only sustain our economy at its current emaciated level. To achieve economic take-off and effectively compete in global markets, tangible investments in education, skills training, and the establishment of a robust intellectual infrastructure are essential. We must cease playing a gamble with history and abandon the expectation of a "benevolent" figure arriving to solve our problems. The persistent fascination with shortcuts and the repeated experimentation with one- man authoritarianism must come to an end for us to chart a new course. Continually relying on the same dice and hoping for a different outcome will only perpetuate our existing vicious cycle. As ancient wisdom suggests, the path to personal salvation is often straightforward, narrow, and demanding, and the same principles apply to the political and economic salvation of nations. There are no instant, one-size-fits-all solutions. It is time to definitively bury the myth of political and economic rain-makers, consigning it to the realm of other fables!
The writer is a lawyer & can be contacted at [email protected]
Disclamer: The views and opinions expressed in Margalla Tribune are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the magazine, its editorial team, or its publishers. The content provided in Margalla Tribune is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional advice. The magazine, its editorial team, and its publishers will not be liable for any losses, damages, or claims arising from the use or reliance on the information contained in this publication. If you wish to reproduce or share any content from Margalla Tribune, please ensure proper credit is given to the magazine. Margalla Tribune reserves the right to make changes to the content, format, and availability of the publication at any time without prior notice.