Is There a Case for Benevolent Dictatorships?

Ordinarily, benevolence and dictatorship next to each other do not belong in the same sentence. However, early in the 20th century, historians have used the phrase "benevolent dictatorship" to describe several notable governments that were run as such.  The concept was not without controversy nor was it free from criticism. 

First, let's consider the following perspectives: (a) Good parenting in any household is, and should be, a benevolent dictatorship; (b) Businesses, any business from a handful of employees to mega corporations can only be run successfully through dictatorship; (c) In the military, along the entirety of the chain of command, dictatorship is both the language and the operating system. So, parents of young children, CEOs and military commanders share those attributes?

 "I believe in benevolent dictatorship provided I am the dictator".

                                                        --- Richard Branson

Richard Nicolas Branson, mega entrepreneur, business visionary.. may have been semi-facetious when he said that so let's have another quote to kind of add another facet of governance before we get into governments - the leaders and the governed .

"To my knowledge there are no good records that have been built by institutions run by committee. In almost all cases the great records are the product of individuals, perhaps working together ..  In reality outstanding records are made by dictators, hopefully benevolent, but nonetheless dictators".

                                                                                                — Peter Cundill

Now, this takes us to the business of running a country.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination".

                                                        ---- Voltaire

Votaire was the pen name of François-Marie Arouet, an 18th century writer and philosopher who advocated for free speech, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.  

This may sound surprising but a democracy, or democratically run nations, is  relatively new as practiced  but the concept had been around  early on in  the long history of humanity.  Plato wrote "The Republic" in or about 375 BCE but it is still today  a college source of reference materials in philosophy and political science.  Commonly used summary for The Republic is that, in three words,  it is about justice, virtue and happiness that should define good governance.  Plato spoke of a philosopher-king - capable of leading an empire/nation with equal justice for all, a virtuous man who must aim for the attainment of happiness for the people. 

The Roman Empire picked it up after the collapse of the Greek Empire but the rule of and by the people did not take hold once the Caesars took over the reign of governing, despite the existence of the Roman Senate, where Julius Caesar was unceremoniously assassinated by several senators right on the senate floor.

It was less than three centuries ago when the idea of democracy was resurrected  and dubbed an experiment by historians upon the birth of a new nation in the New World.

After 1776, the new concept was emulated around the world that had several monarchies toppled over like dominoes.  Where monarchies remained, they merely stayed on as some sort of national symbols while the real government function rested in parliaments or other formats of democracy that allow for the people to choose their leaders.  

Democracy - what a perfect way to run a government. But, is it?

Fast forward to today and we find that, generally speaking, governments are run either as a democracy or dictatorship. The thing though about modern dictatorship is that it can rise from a democratic system that can perversely devolve into an autocratic rule.

We can come to agree that both ideologies have had their successes and, inarguably, their failures.  I think I've covered this in more detail in another blog earlier.

Now, which were those "notable governments that were run as such" referred to in the first paragraph above? 

Obviously, we cannot cover all of them but it is worth mentioning here that there are at least a dozen books by different authors written with the exact same titles, "Benevolent Dictator/s".  

Please refer to the two portraits (below) of two leaders in the modern era:

Left: Viktor Fyodorovich Yanukovich; we will use his initials as VFY

Right: Lee Kuan Yew, who journalists would also write about as LKY           

  

                

VFY currently in exile and living in Russia is a former president of Ukraine who was driven out of office in February, 2014 by parliamentary vote, later charged in absentia for corruption and deaths of many protesters and political enemies during his tenure as president.  He was found guilty and sentenced to 13 years in prison.  Fitting the definition of a kleptocrat for enriching himself while in office, resulted in a collective label attributable to corrupt public officials in Ukraine the word "Yanukism".  Indeed, upon his abrupt and unceremonious departure Ukraine was in deep economic trouble while his lavish lifestyle was exposed by the amount of luxury cars, homes and financial records and traces of foreign bank accounts that revealed the extent of the fortunes he amassed while in office. He is not the only one who took refuge in exile. 

From 1946 to 2012, almost 200 former dictators and monarchs either left their respective countries in exile or were assassinated in a process that is now defined under the general category of regime changes.

LKY, if he were alive today, will have been 100 years old a few days ago on September 23.  Worth mentioning because it means that LKY lived through WWII, regionally as the War in the Pacific, and the Japanese occupation of the Malay Peninsula.  

 

LKY, widely acclaimed as "the father of Singapore" and deservedly so, is also known to have taken Singapore from a third world country after the end of the war up to the time that it separated from the Malaysian Federation to first world status in less than three decades after his country's independence in 1965.  For one leader to have done it well within one lifetime at the helm of unopposed leadership for forty years was an extraordinary feat unmatched in the modern era.  

"With overwhelming parliamentary control at every general election, Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within his premiership. In the process, he forged a highly effective, anti-corrupt government and civil service".

He advocated for civic nationalism backed by meritocracy and integrating instead of dividing the multiracial residents of the island by making English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil as official languages but, to take advantage  of the efficiency of English in international commerce and trade, English became the lingua franca.  LKY grew up in an English speaking family and learned Chinese later in life. During the war he learned to speak Japanese and worked as an interpreter at one time.  He spoke Malay fluently which helped when he negotiated Singapore's entry into the Malaysian Federation, and the subsequent separation from it two years later to gain independence.

LKY had his detractors on issues of press freedom, political protests but not with regards to corruption or enriching himself while in power. To achieve and maintain an honest government LKY believed that ministers were well paid.  Later, he proposed that top civil servants, including judges should be paid at par with professionals in the private sector.  He recognized that teachers should be well paid if the future of the country hinges on the education of the youth.  

LKY was a pragmatist and his tenure could best be described as "semi-authoritarian"  and as a "hybrid regime" came the phrase, "guided democracy". 

VFY and LKY give us two contrasting portraits.  However, is this what wins the case for a benevolent dictatorship?  Let's read the quote below:

 

"The longing for a leader who knows what is in her people's best interests, who rules with care and guides the nation on a wise path, was Plato's idea of a philosopher-king. It's a tempting picture, but it's asking the wrong question. In political history, philosophers moved from a preference for such benevolent dictators to the ugly realities of democracy when they switched the question from "who could best rule?" to "what system prevents the worst rule?"

                                                 -- Rachel Kleinfeld

(Kleinfeld is a senior fellow in Carnegie’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program)

This musing has not adequately answered the question to every reader's satisfaction but I'm afraid we will be asking it again and again. 

What If Your Train Doesn't Stop Here or There?

An atheist was drinking in a bar alone. Quietly at first but by 1:30 a.m. he asked the bartender, "Do you believe in God?"  

"Yes", the bartender replied, "and I need to call you a cab".

"Why?", the atheist was irritated.

"We're closing at 2. Driving at this hour, in the condition you're in right now, you just might end up killing yourself".

"Well, that would be it, right? I die and that's it. Light's out, curtains down, show's over. My train stops here or out there.  I've had a good run and when the whistle stops, end of story because I don't believe in the after life". 

"Are you a betting man, sir", asked the bartender.

"Yeah, I go to the casinos occasionally. I buy lottery tickets. Why do you ask?"

"Ah, well, believing as you do, a two dollar bet to win a million dollars would be one awesome return, right?"

"Yeah, sure!"

"And you believe, when the lights are out, curtains down, your train stops, your life is gone, you'd be a complete zero, not worth anything."

"Yep, flat out nothing, zero, zilch."

"Not even worth two dollars, right?"

"Not even that".

"So, betting a zero, zilch as you put it, would be a good bet  if there is an afterlife and it would be one awesome return, wouldn't it?  Zero for infinity, eternity, life after death, albeit a different life, perhaps?"

"If", the atheist interrupted.

"Indeed and to that I say", the bartender replied, "What 'if' your train doesn't stop here or there"?

"Well, tell me, if there is eternity, is the God you believe in eternal"?

"Let me tell you something. Several months ago a man sitting right about where you are sitting now, had much to drink and he fell asleep.  Right at about closing time he suddenly woke up, as if jolted by something.  I asked him what was wrong.  He said he had a strange dream. He said he had a conversation with God, which went like this: 'God, I know a million years to us is just like a second to you, right?  And a million dollars to us is like a penny to you, right? So, will you give me a penny - a God penny?  God responded, 'sure, just wait and I'll give it to you in a second'.

The atheist, after a minute of pondering, though not focusing on the punch line of the joke, said, "I got it, will you please get me a cab.  Here is my car key. I'll come back tomorrow afternoon".

"You mean this afternoon.  This is already the morning of what you think is tomorrow". 

"Right you are again". He stood up.  "I'll walk outside, get some air while waiting for the cab, all right"?

The bar owner who happened to be nearby checking the receipts by the register who was listening to the conversation  said to the bartender when the atheist walked out, "You've been telling that story to drunks all the time, but to an atheist"? 

"I got him to take the cab, didn't I"?

Later that day, just before 6:00 P.M. The bartender was back for his usual second shift that begins at six.  The day shift bartender said, "The guy who left his car is here. He's got a table since five and all he's been drinking is club soda".  

"Didn't you give him his car key?"  

"I did but he said he'll wait for you. There's a young lady with him".

As the bartender approached their table the atheist stood up, extended his hand for a handshake and pointed to the young lady sitting down. "This is my daughter, Gracey. She drove me over and insisted she'd like to meet you".

Gracey spoke, "First, thank you for talking with him and getting him to take a cab. My sister and an older brother appreciate it. Would you please sit down for just a bit. Your conversation didn't really change him.   You made him go back to the man he used to be.  He was a believer, not extremely devout, but he always took us to church every Sunday when we were little.  My mom passed away last year from cervical cancer".

The man, the dad, chimed in, "She was a wonderful woman whom I adored, a good wife and mother to my children and a great grandmother to our grandkids.  Why did she go the way she did? She suffered and it was painful to bear that she will not see our younger daughter get married.  Since then, I've stopped believing".

Gracey interrupted, "But it is all good now. He spoke to my sister and brother earlier today". Looking at her dad, Gracey said, "And dad, stop apologizing to us.  We are so happy, so blessed, you are back with us".  Turning to the bartender, she said, "Thank you for getting our dad back to us. You just don't know how wonderful this is going to be for us and our children.  So, thank you."

A couple more minutes later they all stood up, the man, the dad, extended his hand again and said, "Thank you for walking me back to my family again. Someone up there must have been listening again and spoke through you".

"God was listening all along and didn't stop speaking to you. This time you went back to listening again". 

As the bartender was putting his apron on, the day shift bartender asked him, "What was that all about?"

"Apparently, in the wee hours of the morning when I finished serving the last drinks, I somehow served a different kind of drink that thankfully quenched someone's thirst in some miraculous fashion.  I hope that in all the years that you will be bartending - I don't know how long you will be doing this - that you will get to experience something like today.  You will understand it then but not for now".

Stories like this happen all the time.  Often in the unlikely places among the most unlikely people in the most unlikely circumstances.  And across all social strata. We  are told we may seldom see it because in this modern age of social media, self absorption, everyone hunched over that tiny screen, people may not notice it unfolding in everyday life.  But they do a million fold more often than those extraordinary events we read in the news or social media. Whatever the reader's belief system or philosophical inclination, it is hard to ever find any definitive answers to some of the questions we encounter that defy logical or scientific explanations. Yet we do hear of life-changing single events or series of happenings that seem to defy the natural progression beyond or apart from what is expected.

The bartender, not saddled with self righteousness, nor a model for sainthood, became no doubt just a messenger.  Whether one ascribes any kind of spiritual motivation on his part or he was just simply doing what bartenders do - listening to other people's honest take on life once uninhibited by alcohol - he, without realizing it then, became an instrument by which another human being was offered a message.

Perhaps it is true that our individual life's trajectory is not one fixed track but one that requires we make  course corrections along the way that come either as minute shifts or life changing transitions.  It must help then to listen and observe along the way if our train doesn't stop here or there but one which goes on forever. 

 

--