Apr 5th, 2007
Benevolent authoritarism: is it possible?
Email This Post
Print This Post
The recent uproar over the ministerial salary increase got me to wonder about something. On the surface, Singapore has all the elements of a democracy. Yet, in practice, it’s actually more of an authoritarian regime (probably more of soft authoritarianism rather than hard authoritarianism). There’s a very interesting paper titled “Machiavelli’s Tiger: Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore’s authoritarian regime” written by an Israeli academic if anyone is interested to find out about the authoritarian elements of Singapore styled governance.
Yet, this authoritarianism does not appear evil. Singapore’s leaders seem to genuinely care about the survival of Singapore. Every major policy in recent years has been accompanied by numerous explanations from the ministers on why it is necessary for such policies. The two most recent examples are the 2% GST hike and the revision of ministerial salaries. The benevolence of Singapore’s leaders is apparent. Therefore, I wonder if the concept of benevolent authoritarianism is actually possible.
When I think harder about the issue, the more I’m convinced that benevolent authoritarianism is not possible. It’s probably widely accepted that power corrupts. That being so, the possession of absolute power is a scary prospect. Singapore is one of the least corrupt by international measures, but I always have some lingering doubts on whether there are cover-ups, especially when there’s such absolute control of the government by a political party.
The story of Animal Farm has always been on my mind since I read it as a secondary school student, and it always reminds me of the dangers of giving too much power to any group of people. How far can leaders with absolute power remain benevolent when there exists the power to act in self-interest without worry of quick retribution? Perhaps this is why the founders of the United States deliberately made governance difficult by separating the powers of the legislative, executive and judiciary. The price of a less efficient government is perhaps a much smaller price to pay compared to an unbridled government that can engage in clandestine misdemeanors.
I hope that I’m just being overly pessimistic. MM Lee has just said that revolving-door style of politics is not suitable for Singapore because it disrupts stability. I do not disagree with that. It’s a benevolent statement. But, revolving-door style politics can ensure that no single group can engage in clandestine misdemeanors because the next group that comes will most logically attempt to dig up dirt on the previous group in order to enhance its own legitimacy.
I think Singaporeans can only believe in benevolent authoritarianism. We have no other choice anyway. Let’s cross fingers and hope that we haven’t been having wool pulled over our eyes for the past 40 years.
Loading ...
“I think Singaporeans can only believe in benevolent authoritarianism. We have no other choice anyway. Let’s cross fingers and hope that we haven’t been having wool pulled over our eyes for the past 40 years.”
I seriously doubt that most local social-political bloggers will accept hard authoritarianism. The large number of anti-establishment posts out there actually shows that they don’t really like soft authoritarianism too.
We do have a choice. In 2011, remember to vote for another political party.
We should do more constructive things than crossing our fingers and hoping that our government will do the right stuff. For example, making noise on the blogosphere encourages healthy debate.
Michael,
Crossing fingers and encouraging debate are not mutually exclusive. Who says you can’t do both in the time between now and the next elections?
Dude, please believe in History when there are no cases of a benevolent authoritarianism that existed or last long enough to be true. Unless you want to be the “make history” types.
Ted,
I only know of benevolent monarchs. I do not know of benevolent authoritarianism. What I observe of the PAP dominated government resembles that of a benevolent monarchy, just that the political system is that of an authoritarian regime, and not monarchy, hence I coin the term benevolent authoritarianism.
Personally, I doubt that the benevolent authoritarianism model that the PAP is trying to create will work in the long term. It’s a very pessimistic view, but I think few human beings are truly altruistic. If there were indeed genuine altruism and desire to serve the country, the whole ministerial pay issue would not have arose.
And, the other thing that scares me is the amount of power being vested in an authoritarian government. The same can be said for a monarchy. MM Lee constantly says that we cannot allow the government to be corrupt. How can we make sure that the government will never be corrupt if it is given so much unchecked power? The only way to ensure a clean government when holding such absolute authority is altruism and benevolence, but as I mentioned, how many people are truly altruistic?
As I always like to say, a government that’s united in all 3 branches of legislative, executive and judiciary can get things moving fast because each branch doesn’t make things difficult for the other. However, this also means that we can move fast towards success, and can move equally fast towards destruction.
Well, based on the meagre amount of literature about Singaporean politics that I have come across and read, I think Singapore is also sometimes referred to as an “illiberal democracy”, “communitarian democracy”, “democracy with Asian/Confucian values” and etc. (Like what MM Lee said recently, quoting Shakespeare, “a rose by any name”)
Agree with you that even if benevolent authoritarianism is possible in the short-run, it would be most difficult to sustain it in the long-run.
And if I am not wrong, some prominent U.S. academic (it was Samuel Huntington, I think) once said that the democratic system implemented by Lee Teng Hui will live on after him but the system built by Lee Kuan Yew will disappear once he is gone. (wonder how long we will have to wait till we can find out whether this prediction will come true, considering that MM Lee once famously declared that he will return from the grave if Singapore runs into trouble?)
I guess Jamie Han (yes, that Jamie Han) was trying to express sentiments similar to yours but words got the better of him and he used the “D” word to describe him.
On that note, it is interesting to note that in the book prepared for MM Lee’s 80th birthday, it was recorded at the back that William Safire described him as perhaps one of the most intelligent despots…
Well, I guess govermental efficiency is the Yang while governmental accountability & transparency is the Yin… Seems like we are having too much Yang and not enough Yin at the moment…
A query…if what LCC said is true…that the system relies on strongmen like LKY (and i think thats the case) then the ramifications in the future could be quite severe. A case in history would be the Byzantine Empire. Alexios I Comnenus (1048-1118) began reforms which saw the many noble families coopted into the imperial family and by extension the Byzantine Government. While the Comnenids were mostly able rulers who were willing to take an active role in affairs, their successors the Angelids were unwilling to do so and thus the Byzantine system slowly regressed until the faithful day when Constantinople fell.
Believe it or not, the gov/PAP has already been corrupted. It is corrupted when it start believing the only right way is its ways and the only choice we have is its choice, and the decision we have is their decision, and election voting is their engineered event. The moment they start qualifying whatever decision they make irrespective of Singaporean’s feeling under the pretext of “for the good of Singapore”, we know very well the system is corrupted because it has high probability of been misused and abused without check and balance like what Aaron mention.
When LKY speak of that only his party is able sustain Singapore and no other party is capable of then I really do fear that LKY fear for changes and fear the outcome of change of power to other party and people. LKY say changes is unavoidable, and ask us to change with time, globalization, competitition, mindset.
Aaron, a question I ask, why LKY fears changes in his own party and governing ? The state of Singapore under his rule in the new millenium is liability not as a asset as he and the controlled media want us to believe in. Everyone feel it long ago, only that the media and those debate start to confuse the people that we still have future.
FT to grow Singapore ? Or do we see spartans growing the Persian empire ?
LKY seem to be confused by his judgement. We have a system very much corrupted under disguise of modernism and idealism. Calling FT to build a nation at the expense of local people might have deem as traitor in the past history !
We break all the rules in the history and still the gahmen say is for good of all the people of Singapore.
ONe good test of whether LKY is a liability or an asset can be seen after he died. If the state of Singapore continue to prosper after he meet mother Mary and Holy Jesus, then we know that LKY is indeed a liability. There is no such thing as legacy leave behind and Singapore prosper of that because people want to remove that legacy long ago as it start to crack and been ridicule.
Why ? Because LKY is perceived to be equal to Singapore, and if he dies, chances are that his idealism and behaviour died with him, and we are liberated and surviving.
The Vatican is a benevolent authoritarian state, albeit a theologically-based one.
I doubt that Singapore will change much even after MM. There’s still LHL, remember? And GCT too. I bet that they share similar beliefs as MM, and as long as they are in power, the “One good test of whether LKY is a liability or an asset can be seen after he died.” won’t work.
Francis,
I will argue that Vatican is a benevolent monarchy. The Pope has the final say over everything if I am not mistaken, and his power is vested by ‘divinity’. In an authoritarian regime, the dominant party has overwhelming power, but the power is derived from human manipulation and not because it’s some ‘divine’ right to rule.
Please feel free to disagree. I’ll be most willing to stand corrected if you can convince me that the Vatican is a benevolent authoritarian state.
Aaron.
A monarchy is authoritarian in its strictest definition, but has the characteristic of the head receiving such authority via inheritence. The Papalcy clearly is not a monarchy because Popes are not related and are elected by Bishops in the Catholic Church.
I believe the right description of the Vatican is benevolent autocracy. Autocracies and monarchies are both authoritarian in nature, just that the former is not necessarily tied by bloodline or deigned inheritence. This defines the nature of governance.
Francis,
Fair enough. The authoritarianism part is settled. But, I would argue that there’s a impetus for the Vatican to be benevolent because its legitimacy is derived from a theology that preaches benevolence. How far can Singapore remain a benevolent state without anchoring itself in something such as theology?
Francis,
according to wikipedia, the Vatican is an elective absolute monarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vatican
Aaron,
I wasn’t at all suggesting that Singapore can parallel the Vatican. Just pointing out one example of benevolent authoritarianism. For one thing, the Vatican is governed by an idealogy which it uses as a guiding post. Just like various countries have ideals embedded in things like a basic constitution. Singapore, while we do have a constitution, seem to be run at a practical level more by survival pragmatisim, which is vague and is fraught with pitfalls.
check tis out:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/2311
and
http://www.edbsociety.org.sg/content_list.asp?contentid=35&contenttypeid=2
________________________
david SINGAPORE // Apr 6, 2007 at 2:37 am
Believe it or not, the gov/PAP has already been corrupted. It is corrupted when it start believing the only right way is its ways and the only choice we have is its choice, and the decision we have is their decision, and election voting is their engineered event. The moment they start qualifying whatever decision they make irrespective of Singaporean’s feeling under the pretext of “for the good of Singaporeâ€, we know very well the system is corrupted because it has high probability of been misused and abused without check and balance like what Aaron mention.
You say the ministers are not corrupt. Well, I say they have corrupted the system by dismantling all the checks and balances. Who knows what discounts other than property purchases at VIP previews they are getting (LKY says property discounts are ok & GCT agrees). Who knows what other private privileges (eg club memberships, discount cards, free upgrading) they are getting under the table. Aren’t these as ok as property discounts since all the other rich and famous get them too?
Its not a democracy. Its leagalism at its best.
http://aserialnumberonmyvote.blogspot.com/2006/08/identifying-ideological-construct-used.html
The only true root interest of the state is to ensure the continued survival of the state in its existing form.
A model that leads to ossification, and ultimately irrelevancy.
Unfortunately, because up till now, the rest of the region hasn’t been able to build a city that shines brighter than SG, SG continues to attract the better talent in the region.
Predicated on this premise, SG will survive. The question then is - will the rest of the region’s cities get their act truly together and outshine SG?
E.o.M.
When 4 legs good, 2 legs bad changes to 4 legs good 2 legs better, I wonder how many singaporeans will notice…
[...] from the Past The discussion on Aaron’s blog http://aaron-ng.info/blog/benevolent-authoritarism-is-it-possible.html has gotten this one’s brain juice churning. Being a history buff has always made me link [...]
Aaron,
It’s probably widely accepted that power corrupts.
> Perhaps a more appropriate term is power attracts the corruptible.
Singapore is one of the least corrupt by international measures, but I always have some lingering doubts on whether there are cover-ups, especially when there’s such absolute control of the government by a political party.
> Your doubt is spot on. Corruption as defined by Transparency International is inadeaquate. For more exposition on this, read the book ‘Korupsi Kepresidenan’ by George Junus Aditjondro.
For LCC:
Well, I guess govermental efficiency is the Yang while governmental accountability & transparency is the Yin… Seems like we are having too much Yang and not enough Yin at the moment…
>Can I offer two more appropriate terms: public accountability and contestability instead of governmental accountability and tranparency? Transparency is the prerequisite for the two former criteria to be met.