22 October 2019 12:10 am Views - 1537
His reply took me by surprise. “I believe we need some type of a stern but humane dictator.” He gave me the reasons for his opinion and his argument goes like this:
“It’s been over 71 years since we achieved independence. We have been told that our freedom fighters had one dream: a nation whose citizens are free and become an integral part of the country’s decision making. Of course, that dream had come true. Today, we are a free and democratic nation and those who are running the country are elected by the people.”
“But, the status of the common man hasn’t improved at all and actually is worsening day by day. He is the one who is bearing the pressure of inflation, price hikes, corruption and social turmoil leading to disruption of national harmony. Who is responsible for all these? Our leaders who are running the country, their vested interests, we or our system?”
“That is why I think we need a clean and powerful dictator to take hold of the country and cleanse the entire system,” he concluded.
Some dictatorships have been outperforming democracies for many decades and that if the trend continues, there will be very little incentive to replace autocrats with the rule of law
According to him, not only have our political leaders failed but also have become absolute corrupt politicians. His anger has led him to the belief that the root cause of these problems is the so-called “democratic freedom.” He quoted a number of success stories from other countries.
Strangely, five out of the seven youth agreed with his arguments. All of them are well educated well-positioned in their careers. They are voicing the concern of a substantial group of young people in Sri Lanka.
50 countries have dictator regime
You cannot blame them for their views. They are frustrated with the existing corruption-based political system in Sri Lanka. 50 nations out of 195 countries in the world today have a dictator or an authoritarian regime. 19 of the current dictatorships are located in the Sub-Saharan region of Africa.Europe is home to one dictatorship, while three of them can be found in Latin America and South America. There are eight dictatorships in Asia, seven in the Eurasian region of the world, and 12 spanning from the northern parts of Africa to the Middle East.
A few months ago, a group of European university students found out from research that from an economic point of view, some dictatorships have been outperforming democracies for many decades and that if the trend continues, there will be very little incentive to replace autocrats with the rule of law.
According to the students’ research, in the last 15 years, the economies of nations ruled by autocrats have grown at an annual rate of 6.8% on average - two times faster than politically free countries. Those autocracies that have opened their markets in recent decades but continued to restrict or prevent democracy - China, Russia, Malaysia, and Singapore, for example - have done better than most of the developed or underdeveloped countries that enjoy a considerable measure of political and civil freedom.
Other side of the story
Yet there is also another side to the story. If you take the 15 richest countries in the world, 13 of them are democracies. The other two are Hong Kong, (Chinese territory which has a type of democracy but doesn’t have universal suffrage), and Qatar, (where the abundance of oil and natural gas, and the tiny population, translate into a large per capita income average).
Practically speaking, a dictatorship is not essential to develop sound economic results. A democratic system can also achieve the same results or even better ones. What you need is to remove the obstacles to entrepreneurship, investment and trade, and make a credible commitment to safeguard the entrepreneurs’ interests. Above all, the pre-requisite is that corruption should be wiped off from the system even before talking about entrepreneurship. What is lacking in Sri Lanka is just that.
Four resources
There are four main factors which influence economic growth within any country: (a) The quality and quantity of available human resource. (b) Natural Resources that are produced by nature either on the land or beneath it. (3) Capital formation – it means the net capital accumulation during an accounting period, for eg., land, building, machinery, power, transportation etc (4) Technological Development – which means application of scientific methods and production techniques.
If these four resources are used in a sensible, effective and corrupt-free way, economic prosperity of a country is secured over the long term. It is simple as that! Spain is a modern success story. However, at no point in the last quarter of a century, did the Spaniards achieve annual growth figures comparable to those of China?
Clear picture
The picture is now well- focused and much clearer.
The economic growth of a country has no bearing whether it is a democratic, autocratic or dictatorship. It depends on the way the Government uses its resources economically
and effectively.
When the environment in which the economy breathes depends on institutions rather than on the commitment of an autocrat or a party, stability and reliability generate the sort of long-term results that we call “development.
The democratic countries can compete favourably with dictatorships even in the short term. One example is India, our neighbour. Another example is Peru. Both are growing countries with over six per cent annual growth.
Another issue we have to remember is that growth in dictatorship countries can bring relief for downtrodden people but they would never get political or civil liberty. So, while it’s impossible to predict where dictatorships will arise and where they will prevail on the long term, they will almost certainly always be with us. I personally think that every developing country is a little bit at risk of becoming a dictatorship.
Bad democracy vs humane dictatorship
Contrary to popular Western belief, however, dictatorship isn’t necessarily a bad thing for all places and people. Not all dictatorships end in misery, and not everyone wants to live in a democracy. A bad democracy might be worse than a humane dictatorship. It all depends on the extent of the parameters of dictatorship and democracy.
As long as quality of life remains high and people are allowed to live their lives as they wish, citizens can be completely happy under a dictatorship. Some even become nostalgic for the authoritarian regime after they lose it. If you look at survey research in some countries under authoritarian regimes, people are happy.”
As long as leaders avoid the inherent pitfalls of that mode of governance and take their citizens’ wishes into account, dictatorships are simply a different approach for leading a country, one that values order over individual liberties. Some cultures may just prefer security and stability over freedom.
What do we need?
What do Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew have in common? If you’re thinking they each created a better future through their remarkable leadership in business and society, you would be correct. If you’re also thinking their leadership style was more autocratic than democratic, that would be correct too.
So what? Autocratic leadership creates a better future? Could it really be true? As I reflected a bit more, almost all leaders I could think of who had changed the course of history, were indeed autocratic.
Should we now stop over glorifying democratic leadership? Some of the most powerful dictators of the past century have also been successful leaders. eventhough history shows that you need to be autocratic to drive breakthrough success, you cannot forge ahead recklessly, because the empowered workforce of today won’t let you. This, in effect, is the 21st century leadership dilemma.
So, what’s the way forward for us? Benevolent autocracy? Being a benevolent autocrat is not easy in the social media era. Since every word and action of a leader is in full and open view these days, he needs to be autocratic about his values and purpose, and at the same time, be humble and respectful with people. Above all, he should have a clear and meticulous character acceptable by everyone.
It is a delicate dance of seemingly opposing ideas. Do we have such people among us? It is a million-dollar question! It leaves us with that famous saying: “When the ideal is not possible, we have to proceed with what’s reasonably possible.”