The Western world has rejected oligarchic and autocratic governmental structures. Foolishly, we have pushed them aside, denouncing them as immoral, favouring liberal democracies instead. Contradicting nearly all history, we view these two conditions (wealth and democracy) as inseparable. When we look to the poorest regions of the world, this ill-found sentiment is only reaffirmed; it is easy to look to a despot in Africa and shout, "Look! You need democracy to succeed." However, a simple review of the histories' of developed countries tells otherwise. Despite its seemingly successful practice in the Global North, democracy hinders the development of the Global South.
Foremost, we must address the most obvious contention: it is true that nations like Taiwan, New Zealand and Norway are both developed and democratic. Furthermore, it is true that there are nations like North Korea and Chad that are both poor and under authoritarian regimes. However this correlation is misleading when we wish to know whether anti-egalitarian regimes help nations develop. It is not that liberal nations become wealthy, but rather that wealthy nations become liberal.
Upon independence in 1965, Singapore was a poor, largely agrarian society, crippled by racial tensions. The city state had a gross domestic product per capita of just USD 516.54. In the year prior, the country had exploded into race riots between the ethnic Chinese community and the ethnic Malay community. Thirty-six people were killed and five hundred and sixty were injured. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister, immediately set out to advance Singapore's global standing, improve its economic situation and rectify its internal social landscape. Lee's administration was confronted with the impact of British decolonisation, racial tensions and a dire economic state. Nevertheless, his commitment to firm rule enabled Singapore to sail out of its darkest hours, eventually becoming the most developed nation in Asia.
Upon independence in 1965, Singapore was a poor, largely agrarian society, crippled by racial tensions. The city state had a gross domestic product per capita of just USD 516.54. In the year prior, the country had exploded into race riots between the ethnic Chinese community and the ethnic Malay community. Thirty-six people were killed and five hundred and sixty were injured. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister, immediately set out to advance Singapore's global standing, improve its economic situation and rectify its internal social landscape. Lee's administration was confronted with the impact of British decolonisation, racial tensions and a dire economic state. Nevertheless, his commitment to firm rule enabled Singapore to sail out of its darkest hours, eventually becoming the most developed nation in Asia.
As Britain loosened its grip on world politics, so did its troops. Troops that had traditionally defended the region were now withdrawing; Singapore now needed to defend itself from foreign threats. In response to this, Lee's administration established the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) , and by 1971, the SAF had sixteen thousand conscripts. In the same year, Lee signed a multilateral defence treaty (the Five Powers Defence Agreement), meaning that Singapore now had the support of New Zealand, Malaysia, Australia and the United Kingdom.
In the twenty-five years that Lee was Prime Minister of an independent Singapore, the size of the economy increased by more than 3500%. Lee's iron grip and superb economic management led to Singapore's rapid industrialisation and development. The administration capitalised on the United States' abandonment of the gold standard by curating the Singaporean economy (via tax incentives) to establish it as a hub for foreign exchange in the region. Under the advice of the Albert Winseminus, a Dutch economist, and the Economic Development Board, Lee neutralised the threat of communist activists and attracted foreign investment from multinational corporations. In the 1970s, major companies like Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments and General Electric all had manufacturing plants in the city.
Among Lee's more controversial practices was the use of corporal punishment in the legal system. Singapore inherited the practice from the British Empire, but Lee greatly expanded the types of punishments for which corporal punishment would apply. Most Western nations had abolished all forms of judicial corporal punishment decades earlier, and thus Lee's practice contributed to his reputation as an authoritarian. Despite this, Lee persisted. Ignoring derision from the Western world, Lee said, "With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries." Nations need an iron grip. Lee was right. Very few countries develop as egalitarian entities. In 1913, at the peak of Britain's colonial power, no woman could vote, and there was still a property requirement for men who wished to exercise the franchise. At the end of the Gilded Age, less than a fifth of the American population voted in the presidential election. Under the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, the German Empire dominated Continental European politics and became the third largest economy in the world. Today, Africa's two fastest-growing economies, Ethiopia and Rwanda, are both deemed "authoritarian" by the Democracy Index.
In the twenty-five years that Lee was Prime Minister of an independent Singapore, the size of the economy increased by more than 3500%. Lee's iron grip and superb economic management led to Singapore's rapid industrialisation and development. The administration capitalised on the United States' abandonment of the gold standard by curating the Singaporean economy (via tax incentives) to establish it as a hub for foreign exchange in the region. Under the advice of the Albert Winseminus, a Dutch economist, and the Economic Development Board, Lee neutralised the threat of communist activists and attracted foreign investment from multinational corporations. In the 1970s, major companies like Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments and General Electric all had manufacturing plants in the city.
Among Lee's more controversial practices was the use of corporal punishment in the legal system. Singapore inherited the practice from the British Empire, but Lee greatly expanded the types of punishments for which corporal punishment would apply. Most Western nations had abolished all forms of judicial corporal punishment decades earlier, and thus Lee's practice contributed to his reputation as an authoritarian. Despite this, Lee persisted. Ignoring derision from the Western world, Lee said, "With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries." Nations need an iron grip. Lee was right. Very few countries develop as egalitarian entities. In 1913, at the peak of Britain's colonial power, no woman could vote, and there was still a property requirement for men who wished to exercise the franchise. At the end of the Gilded Age, less than a fifth of the American population voted in the presidential election. Under the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, the German Empire dominated Continental European politics and became the third largest economy in the world. Today, Africa's two fastest-growing economies, Ethiopia and Rwanda, are both deemed "authoritarian" by the Democracy Index.
Lee Kuan Yew's model of government best illustrates how authoritarianism can, and does, brings about development. Lee decided early to play an active role in managing the economy by establishing series of targets to be achieved within certain time frames. Developmental plans result in governmental stability, and provide clear expectations of what the nation aspires to achieve. Such plans hold leaders far more accountable than any election could hope to. In the case of Singapore, this involved many market capitalist reforms, but the rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union and China prove that such plans could easily be under the directive of collectivist economic theory. Joseph Stalin's first five-year plan put the Soviet Union on the path of becoming a formidable economic power; industrial output increased by 141% in the span of five years, and total economic output increased by 46%.
While developing nations must not necessarily revoke the franchise to succeed, it is naive to suggest that they must blindly adopt the political models of developed nations. At various stages, different nations must adjust their style of government as to ensure accountability and growth. Currently, for developed nations, the optimal political model might be a republic or a democracy. But for the dozens of struggling countries in the Global South, it is not.
Comments
Post a Comment