Is development possible without democracy and pluralism?

by Shanie

"To build a country, you need passion. If you just do your sums –plus, minuses, credit, debit – you are a washout."

"The crux of the difference between success and failure lies in the basic philosophy."

(September 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Singapore had its Presidential Election last week. Although the position is largely a ceremonial one, the constitution provides for the President to be elected. The position has been contested only once before in its eighteen year history. This time, there were four candidates in the field. The candidate elected was the one favoured by Singapore’s authoritarian political establishment (read former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew) but he won only by a razor thin majority. Only 0.3 percentage points separated him from the candidate finishing second. Dr Tony Tan, the newly elected President who succeeds S R Nathan, received only 35% of the popular vote.

This strong anti-establishment vote followed the lack-lusture showing by the People’s Action Party, which has ruled Singapore since the island became self-governing in 1959, at the last parliamentary election held in May this year. Its share of the popular vote fell from 80% in the previous elections to 60% this time. Although Singapore is a parliamentary democracy, Lee Kuan Yew, its first Prime Minister ruled the island nation with an iron fist until he retired in 1990. Despite the strong authoritarian streak in him, Lee was also a visionary. The two quotes above are from his National Day speeches shortly before he retired from office. His son Lee Hsien Loong is now the Prime Minister. In between Goh Chok Teng served two terms as Prime Minister, prompting the irreverent criticism that Singapore’s history has been one of Father, Son and ‘Holy’ Goh. But Lee Kuan Yew’s shadow has been cast over both his successors. Authoritarian rulers find it difficult to let power go. In 1988, shortly before he officially retired from office, he said: "I belong to that exclusive club of founder members of new countries – first Prime Ministers or Presidents of a new independent country. And even from my sick bed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel that something is going wrong, I’ll get up. Those who believe that when I have left the Government as Prime Minister, I’ve gone into permanent retirement, really should have their heads examined."

We, who are trying to follow the Singapore example in urban development, must realise that urban development is about people. Displacing people, by whatever soft term used, is not the way of any development.

That was typical of the arrogance shown by authoritarian rulers. In totalitarian regimes, they will one day be overthrown in a bloody coup. In democracies, they or their parties will be quietly voted out. That is the process that has been begun in Singapore. When in power, Lee Kuan Yew pursued his opponents with vigour, forcing some of his former colleagues into exile. But the leaders of the Worker’s Party, the principal opposition party, stayed on and fought the Prime Minister at great personal cost to themselves. The late Ben Jeyaratnam, one of the then leaders of the Workers Party was driven to bankruptcy by a series of libel action filed by the Prime Minister which the High Court of Singapore duly upheld by handing down hefty fines to Jeyaratnam. He was even debarred from practising his profession as an advocate of the Supreme Court of Singapore.

Jeyaratnam did the then unthinkable. He appealed to the Privy Council in London – an action that was later, after Jeyaratnam’s successful appeal, rendered inadmissible for Singapore appellants by the Lee Kuan Yew Government. Five Law Lords of the Privy Council in their 1988 judgement in the Ben Jeyaratnam case stated in a stinging rebuke both to the Singapore judiciary and the Singapore government: "Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgements the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they were not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession. Their Lordships’ order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore." Such a pardon was of course not forthcoming, but Jeyaratnam had been vindicated. It is the courage of people like Jeyaratnam who fought a powerful political establishment that is slowly and quietly taking root in Singapore. Authoritarianism, even by well meaning individuals, is never a substitute for democracy and pluralism.

The spectre of majoritarianism

This has a relevance to us in Sri Lanka where well-meaning individuals seem to be trying to adopt the Singapore model in urban development. But, in the long run, it is doomed to failure unless accompanied by transparency, an adherence to civil rights and the rule of law and a respect for the marginalised in society. The University of Pennsylvania Press is due to release next month a book ‘In my Mother’s House’ written by a young scholar Sharika Thiranagama, daughter of Rajini Thiranagama, one of the founders of the University Teachers for Human Rights who was gunned down by the LTTE. In a Foreword to the book, Professor Gananath Obeysekere has written: "More immediate for those of us living in Sri Lanka, whether intellectuals or ordinary folk or those in the international community, is the spectre of majoritarianism in a government that rules with an overwhelming parliamentary majority. This means among other things a fear of enveloping authoritarianism, erosion of civil rights within the nation, and impunity with which critics of the government can be muzzled. Journalists have been especially vulnerable and have been attacked or gone missing, and in one instance a TV station has been vandalized."

Over three decades ago, President J R Jayawardene also tried to adopt the Singapore model of development. He even got down Lee Kuan Yew to advise his government on what needed to be done. But the authoritarian streak in Jayawardene was much more strong than it was in his Singapore mentor. Lee Kuan Yew was himself to lament many years later that his advice was not followed and the result was Sri Lanka landed itself in a pickle over minority rights and political democracy. He said that when Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, her population was a mix of migrants from various countries. The political leadership had to unite them and harness their talents to building up a strong nation. He said they had the example of other failed states in the region (he referred to Ceylon in that category) and he was determined to avoid religious strife, racial conflicts and linguistic strife. We have to give it to Lee Kuan Yew that he was able to build up Singapore from virtually nothing to what it is today. True, he has been hounding out his political opponents like Ben Jeyaratnam but he has not attempted to rig elections or postpone them (a la J R Jayawardene’s referendum) and has not allowed ‘robber barons’ to fleece his country at the expense of the people. Every Singaporean (even the relatively poor who live in the kampons) enjoys a standard of living much higher than the average citizen in other countries of the region.

Singapore is a small island state with a population of less than 5 million people. So it is not quite a model for other larger countries with larger populations. But other countries could follow its basic philosophy. Do not allow religious, or linguistic strife to grow by acts of discrimination. But political freedom has not been the strength of Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore. The basics were there – a free and fair election sans any rigging. But political opponents were hounded and driven to penury. Only a few dogged fighters like Ben Jeyaratnam persevered. But had Lee allowed people like Jeyaratnam to function without harassment, it would not only have strengthened his own stature but also strengthened his governance of the country. A free and vibrant opposition is absolutely essential if any country is to grow in every way.

The hounding of Sarath Silva

We, who are trying to follow the Singapore example in urban development, must realise that urban development is about people. Displacing people, by whatever soft term used, is not the way of any development. Nor is the hounding of political opponents and critics going to pave the way for good governance. The latest to fall victim in this regard seems to be former Chief Justice Sarath Silva. Although his first appointment and some subsequent judgements did provoke some controversy, he retired from office two years ago. Since then, he has not only been a strident opponent of the way former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka has been treated by the Rajapaksa administration, he has also recently been a vocal critic of corruption in government. For this, two years after retirement, a government politician is producing 42 judicial officers who claim they were victimised by Sarath Silva when he was Chief Justice. We cannot comment on this complaint; we neither know what the charges are nor do we know the facts related to each case. But it does seem strange that these 42 judicial officers waited two years to make their complaint and they had also jointly to state their case directly to the President through an UPFA member of parliament, when there are judicial remedies available specifically to investigate such complaints.

The harassment of Sarath Silva follows the harassment of Sarath Fonseka, both of whom headed two arms of the state under the Mahinda Rajapaksa government. It is difficult not to be convinced that the hounding of these two senior state officers has everything to do with their political opposition to the Rajapaksa administration. In contrast, the government, acting through a friendly Attorney General, has freed rapists, murderers and others so long as they were members or supporters of the administration. We now have a new Attorney General. It will be the country’s hope that she can restore the image of the Attorney General’s Department as an apolitical and professional body.

The Revd James Minchin, an Australian Anglican priest, who had worked earlier in Singapore, did his post-graduate work on Lee’s Singapore and wrote a critical study of Lee Kuan Yew, the politician. He writes: "What makes Lee more than an opportunist, a clown or a stooge, three types of character who, in his view, have crowded the political stage of Singapore? Surely he is not less willing or less able than others to seize opportunities for attaining his goals. It is not that his personality has been matched to the demands of his rise to power or his present undisputed position without moments of play-acting and absurdity. Neither has it been true that he has always been recognised as his own master.....

A small island state cannot expect ro preserve its accustomed manner of existence and livelihood in a problematic world and alien regions if there is no discipline or restraint. Whatever the gaffes and indiscretions of his behaviour towards the outside world, Lee is still perceived to be the person best equipped for handling the thorns of the foreign relations garden so that Singaporeans may pluck or at least sniff the roses." Would that have some lessons for us in Sri Lanka?