The Lee Hypothesis claims that authoritarian systems are much better at fostering development as compared to consultative, democratic ones. This hypothesis is named after Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore. Supporters point to the remarkable progress in poverty alleviation made by China, another authoritarian state, while alluding to the innumerable delays and difficulties faced by India to get anything going. It is not only economists who forward the hypothesis, development workers do it too.
On a personal front I have had issues with that stand. I have always believed that democracy, while not the perfect system, was probably the best we had as on date. I never believed in the concept of a ‘benign dictator’ a term which, to me, is oxymoronic. I have been, and to a large extent even now am, a great believer in freedom of expression and right to dissent, which authoritarian rules proscribe. I have been very rigid on this position for as long as I remember.
However, in the recent past I have had reason to question the rigidity of my stand. Random thoughts kept swirling through my mind. Perhaps,
- Not all Authoritarian rules are bad!
- Sometimes a country does NEED strong leadership!
Why the questions, you may ask?
Well, what happened was that I spent a few days in Rwanda. Had occasion to travel around a bit and talk to Rwandans. My travels in other East African countries had created a mental image of what Rwanda would be like. But what I saw was a shock to my system. It was nothing like what I had imagined. What I saw was remarkable and perhaps unique in the developing world; decent roads, disciplined traffic, absolutely no litter anywhere, tin-roofed homes in rural areas, latrines in every rural home, Rwandans engaging in voluntary service ½ day each month.
I don’t know what I expected but it was definitely not this. I knew that the country had been destroyed after the genocide, just seventeen years ago. That may be a long time for a human life but insignificant in the life of a nation.
Most Rwandans ascribe this remarkable metamorphosis to the very strong rule of the current President Paul Kagame (who was the vice-President in the new government that took over after the genocide). The man is brilliant and has a clear vision of where he wants Rwanda to head to. At the same time, make no mistakes – he is very authoritarian. This has been amply demonstrated a number of times in the last seventeen years (where he has been at the near top or top of government) whether it was
- Forced closing down the internally displaced people camps on the grounds that they were fomenting trouble.
- Doing away with thatched roofs and making tin roofs compulsory, often at huge costs to the poor.
- Levying punitive fines for littering or drunken driving.
- Enforcing ‘voluntary’ work (umuganda) through an elaborate system of fines for those who don’t participate.
Then there have been excesses, like the massacre in the Kibeho camp, that have blotted the copybook. Nevertheless, these cannot take too much away from the brilliant nation building that has been accomplished.
Would a democratic, participatory system of government have been able to do this in such a short time?
Let’s look at the situation seventeen years ago when the government took over. The country was in ruins. There had been four years of civil war preceding the genocide. Almost the entire population had been displaced. 20% of the population had been killed in less than 100 days. There were no resources, industry, agriculture ongoing. Infrastructure had collapsed. There was no national pride left and there were even doubts on whether the nation would continue to exist given the mistrust and enmity that had come to fore amongst the people.
Somehow I think democracy would not have done as well. It needed decisive, bold and uncompromising leadership and that is what Rwanda, luckily, got.
However, can this continue? Should it continue? I think not. In the long run, as Amartya Sen and others have argued, democracy is the best system to foster growth and alleviate poverty.
In governance, as in life, timing is everything. There is a time and place for a particular strategy to be implemented and a time and place for it to die out. For instance, I think it was right for Nehru to adopt the commanding heights model of development in independent India. That ensured attention to infrastructure development and safety nets for the poor. Sadly, the Indian government did not have an exit strategy. The eventual move to a more liberal model had to be forced on the country when it could have been phased out 10-15 years after independence. Indians are still bearing the brunt of socialist days.
I feel that Rwanda and President Kagame have reached a critical point. A base has been created from which Rwanda can take off and claim a place in the developed league of nations. No doubt that problems of poverty and income inequity still remain to be addressed. However, the need for a totalitarian state seems to have abated. History, and more recently the Arab Spring, has shown that authoritarian regimes have a limited shelf-life.
It is time for President Kagame to show foresight and wisdom and voluntarily relinquish some of the power his government has. Open out the space for dissent. Promote a genuine multi-party democracy. Reap the benefits of a democratic state. Live with the disadvantages.
It takes enormous strength for anyone anywhere to voluntarily relinquish power. We have had very few examples of this in the recent past. Nelson Mandela did it and by that act elevated his stature immensely.
Will President Kagame be able to do it?
We are comparing the effectiveness between bad democracy and good authoritarianism.
From what you write, the good authoritarianism example – President Paul Kagame has done surprisingly well in rescuing Rwanda from the brink of failure as a nation
Comparing that with India & bad democracy: Why do I use that word? Because no democracy is truely meaningful unless every one has equal opportunity to participate. For so many years women have been left out of real participation. Even now as the number of women in public life increases it is not enough. Education, health & hygiene and so poverty would have been much better tackled had women been equal participants in running the country. I don’t mean this in a feminist angle but say it as a humanist.
Patriarchy and patriarchal practices have been at the root of not only gender but other discriminations as well. Yes, caste, religion and age being the foremost amongst them. I think this is the main reason why democracy in India has not given better results.
Democracy however good, may always implement ideas slower than authoritarianism
can but the problem lies in the nature of democracy. How good or how bad.
Good authoritarianism may serve its purpose in the short run. But in the long run it is too risky and a killer of creativity, diversity of ideas and freedom of expression.
Namita, we are not really in argument
In the long run we are looking at a democratic institution to take us all through.
I just differ on one point though. I am not willing to declaim Indian democracy as bad. I would say it is still young and the pains we see are those that all teenagers and adolescents go through. Just reflect on the fact that all the democracies that are now reasonably ‘mature’ went through painful process of finding their feet – votes for minorities, women etc took time. I sometimes wonder how democracy works to the extent it does in India. Look at the feudal and patriarchal structure of society we have in India (even now). We will get there eventually.. THAT i am reasonably sure of..
Would the recovery of Germany and Japan after complete destruction of WWII under a democratic system be counter examples to Rwanda?
Unfortunately, examples like Rwanda are too far and few between huge number of societies that suffered under authoritarian rule.
Completely agree Gadre on the second point. Which is why I still believe that in the long run, democracy is one of the better systems that we have at present. On the first point – well don’t agree completely. Three reasons (also differences with Germany and Japan)
1. The devastation that Rwanda experienced was out of all proportion to the size and strength of the country.
2. The genocide was committed by Rwandans themselves destroying any feeling of nationhood, amity etc.
3. Rwanda had been a poor, war racked country to begin with. This calamity came on top of decades of colonial rule, 30 + years of poverty and mis-rule and 4 years of civil war..
Then again there was no ‘master-plan’ by the developed world to help Rwanda get to her feet…
Important differences you will agree..
What I appreciate the most in this article of yours is the forthright confession by you that you need to review your own firm opinions. That needs guts. Just to keep your belief and view, you have not cited out extreme examples.
Democracy, many a times, behaves like, as the idiom says – too many cooks spoil the broth. Humans like animals can be trained with a stick in the hand. But the shepherd should throw away the stick once the herd takes the path and starts travelling smoothly. Anyway like you have said it is difficult to relinquish authority. Everyone cannot be Narayan Murthy.
Thanks..