CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA – The death of Lee Kuan
Yew, Singapore’s founding father, offers an occasion to reflect on his legacy –
and, perhaps more importantly, on whether that legacy has been correctly
understood.
During his 31 years as prime minister, Lee
crafted a unique system of government, intricately balancing authoritarianism
with democracy and state capitalism with the free market. Known as “the
Singapore model,” Lee’s brand of governance is often
mischaracterized as a one-party dictatorship superimposed on a free-market economy.
His success in transforming Singapore into a prosperous city-state is
frequently invoked by authoritarian rulers as justification for their tight
control of society – and nowhere more so than in China.
Indeed, Chinese President Xi Jinping is
pursuing a transformative agenda heavily influenced by the Singapore model – a
relentless war on corruption, a broad crackdown on dissent, and pro-market
economic reforms. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees in Singapore a vision
of its future: the perpetuation of its monopoly on political power in a
prosperous capitalist society.
But the Singapore model, as China’s rulers
understand it, never existed. To emulate Lee’s model of government – rather
than its cartoon caricature – would require allowing a far more democratic
system than the CCP would ever tolerate.
The true secret of Lee’s political genius was
not his skillful use of repressive practices, such as launching lawsuits
against the media or his political opponents; such tactics are common and
unremarkable in semi-authoritarian regimes. What Lee did that was truly
revolutionary was to use democratic institutions and the rule of law to curb
the predatory appetite of his country’s ruling elite.
Unlike China, Singapore allows opposition
parties to contest in competitive and free (though not necessarily fair)
elections. In the last parliamentary
election in 2011, six opposition parties won a total of 40%
of the vote. Should the People’s Action Party (PAP), the party Lee founded,
lose its legitimacy due to poor governance, Singapore’s voters could throw it
out of office.
By holding regular competitive elections, Lee
effectively established a mechanism of political self-enforcement and accountability
– he gave Singaporean voters the power to decide whether the PAP should stay in
power. This enforcement mechanism has maintained discipline within Singapore’s
ruling elite and makes its promises credible.
Regrettably, most of the rest of the world
has never given Lee proper credit for crafting a hybrid system of
authoritarianism and democracy that vastly improved the wellbeing of his
country’s citizens, without subjecting them to the brutality and oppression to
which many of Singapore’s neighbors have resorted.
China would be wise to embrace this model, by
introducing a considerable degree of democracy and strengthening adherence to
the rule of law. China’s 1.4 billion citizens would benefit immensely if their
rulers were to adopt Singapore-style political institutions and practices. This
would mean, at a minimum, legalizing organized political opposition,
introducing competitive elections at regular intervals, and creating an
independent judiciary.
Emulating Lee would allow China to achieve immense
progress and become a more humane and open society with a brighter future.
Sadly, there is almost no chance of this happening, at least any time soon.
When China’s leaders cite the Singapore model, what they have in mind is
limited to the perpetuation of their power. They want the benefits of political
dominance, without the checks imposed by a competitive institutional context.
Lee may have been skeptical about the
benefits of democracy, but he was not viscerally hostile to it; he understood
its usefulness. By contrast, China’s leaders view democracy as an existential
ideological threat that must be neutralized at any cost. For them, allowing
even a modicum of democracy as a means to impose some discipline on the elite
is considered suicidal.
Unfortunately, Lee is no longer with us. One
would like to imagine him explaining to China’s leaders what has been truly
innovative about the Singapore model. Obviously, that is not an option. But it
would behoove the CCP – if for no other reason than simple respect for one of
Asia’s great statesmen – to stop appropriating the Singapore brand in the
service of a completely different agenda.