SINGAPORE -- The notion of multiparty
democracy as an ideal one-size-fits-all form of government is, I am
sorry to have to report, not exactly bowling people over these
days. Take a look at Thailand and the Philippines, which
Washington has often enshrined on its ideological placards as a
pair of shining democracies amid a political landscape otherwise
littered with brutal dictatorships, severe one-party
quasi-democracies or whatever.
Goodbye to fantasy island: Manila's fragile democracy is in turmoil
over serious allegations that President Gloria Arroyo manipulated
the results of her re-election in 2004 (sound anything like Florida
2000?); and in Bangkok, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, though
duly elected, has resigned over a firestorm of charges involving
family corruption and political incompetence.
Indeed, Thaksin's forced resignation has only added fuel to the
political firestorm of flames licking at the feet of the Arroyo
presidency. Many Filipinos want Arroyo to take a hint from
Thaksin.
In Asia, a lot of people say that
elections are meaningless rituals if they do not produce good
results. Pakistan, for example, had a modeled parliamentary
democratic system that was as corrupt as could be. In truth, things
didn't improve until strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf took over and
started to knock some sense into the place.
Strongmen are not necessarily a bad thing if they are smart and
their hearts are in the right place. Did you know that otherwise
democratic Thailand actually has a king? And did you know that the
Thai people in general tend to like and respect him? So much so
that when King Bhumibol Adulyadej called Thaksin in for a chat the
other day, the widespread belief was that after the king was
finished speaking, millionaire-businessman Thaksin would be
finished politically. And he was.
Or take the political situation in Singapore. This tiny city-state
of a country is as politically stable as the Vatican City and
sometimes it seems almost as wealthy. It's true that for decades
people have been allowed to vote (sort of), but the opposition to
the long-in-power People's Action Party was usually, by
manipulation if not design, a joke.
The prime architect of successful modern Singapore, with the
highest standard of living in Southeast Asia, was Lee Kuan Yew, now
82. He now has the somewhat silly title of minister mentor (he
mostly mentors other ministers, including his son, who's now the
prime minister).
Lee has been called every un-nice name in the Western political
insult book -- from "the Little Hitler of Southeast Asia" (from an
American newspaper columnist who'd never met him) to the kinder
"soft authoritarian." But in my book he is nothing short of a
political genius who is showing people that multiparty democracy
peopled by semi-corrupt politicians and well-heeled
special-interest lobbies does not always produce anything like the
best governance.
Turns out, "Little Hitler" himself was in Saudi Arabia last month,
and the king, prince and advisers were bowing to him as if he were
some kind of secular political pope. They all wanted the details on
how Singapore has managed to become so wealthy, have such a
squeaky-clean environment, enable most families to own rather than
rent their homes and offer first-rate public education.
And when the Saudis come to Singapore anew for further briefings on
how it is done, they will want to check in with the redoubtable
Kishore Mahbubani, who until recently was a highly regarded
ambassador to the United Nations (which, by the way, will need a
new secretary general by next year, if anyone's interested in
nominating Mahbubani).
Mahbubani, an ethnic Indian with the gift of gab like an Asian
Cicero, is now dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Its mission is to educate not just Singaporeans but students and
officials in the immediate region, especially those who are serious
about seeing really good public policies put into action.
Visiting the school last month, I noticed that very many of the
students were from Asia, including Chinese from the mainland and
some from Vietnam. That sort of surprised me: In any
self-respecting communist-controlled state, the party is the fount
of all wisdom. So why would a public-policy school be needed? It
looks as if at least some of the party bosses in Hanoi have figured
out that no one institution can have all the answers.
Vietnam is even thinking of starting its own public-policy school,
and it has begun preliminary consultations with policy schools in
Singapore and even in the United States.
Let us wish the Vietnamese the best of luck. Good, smart and clean governance is in everybody's
interest, whatever kind of political system produces
it.
UCLA professor Tom Plate, a member of the Pacific Council on
International Policy and a veteran American journalist, has
recently been traveling in Southeast Asia.
