The word "authoritarian" has a negative ring to Western ears. To set the record straight, "authoritarian" is innocuously defined in the New Webster's Dictionary as "favoring, or relating to, the theory that respect for authority is of greater importance than individual liberty."
Authoritarianism has been the successful government of choice for many Asian countries, especially those seeking to quickly industrialize. The oligarchs of the Meiji Japan instituted it to catapult a nation that could be best described as a feudal anachronism into the ranks of major world power in less than 50 years; Park Chung Hee used it to transform war-ravaged South Korea into a burgeoning economic force in less than two decades.
Of all the different brands of Asian-style authoritarianism, however, Singapore's case is most problematic. First, unlike in Japan and South Korea, Singapore's authoritarian government has been in power through democratic elections from the very beginning. In other words, the people, rather than the ruling class, chose authoritarian government.
More important, however, the growth of a well-educated, affluent middle class in Singapore has not been accompanied by political pluralism and the expansion of individual rights, as has been the case in Japan and South Korea. In Singapore, authoritarianism does not appear to be merely a transitional government.
To the ideology-intoxicated American who believes Western democracy represents the End of History, a teleological goal of all mankind, the fact that Singapore remains authoritarian today is particularly disturbing. It punctures his cultural arrogance.
In his celebrated book "The End of History and the Last Man," Francis Fukuyama worries that the kind of authoritarianism found in countries like Singapore may present a legitimate ideological alternative still left to engage Western liberal democracy.
The current orgy of Singapore-bashing then, is not surprising. After the American student, Michael Fay, was sentenced to four months in prison and six lashes with a cane, the critics of the Singaporean authoritarianism went into high gear. Singapore merits moral condemnation from the West, they say, because it is an uncivilized state that employs, to quote one columnist, an "intolerable right to torture" to keep its populace in line.
William Safire, perhaps the nation's premier commentator, branded the Singaporean regime a "dictatorship" and the country "lawless." A New York Times editorial titled "Time to Assert American Values" called for economic coercion to obtain Fay's pardon from the "oppressive" Singapore government. For the left-wing journal The Nation, Singapore is simply a "fascist" society. Some have even leveled at the Singaporean regime the most damaging (and in this case, absolutely absurd) of all charges in the 20th century political lexicon: totalitarianism.
The attempt to denigrate any society that exhibits authoritarian features, of course, has been standard enterprise for Americans. America's political consciousness is steeped in anti-authoritarian thought.
It cannot be denied that Singapore's government practices methods that are deemed unacceptable in many Western democracies. To cite some examples: the Singaporean government does curtail freedom of the press and does attempt to silence open criticism of the government.
But it is too simplistic and ultimately false to dismiss Singapore's and, by extension, Asia's authoritarian model as crude police states.
Singapore's authoritarian government, like many of its Asian counterparts, was created out of necessity. Lee Kuan Yew, its founding father, correctly understood that, in order for Singapore to become a prosperous modern state, it must have order and stability prior to the establishment of a genuine Western-style democracy. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, a staunch defender of liberty himself, liberty is inapplicable to developing countries.
And authoritarianism in Singapore has delivered. The Singaporeans have obtained the good life that they could not have obtained from Western democracy. Today, Singaporeans boast the second-highest per capita income in Asia after Japan and arguably enjoy the highest standard of living on the continent. According to a Time feature which appeared a year ago, "Singapore is Asia's dream country." One Singaporean was quoted in the same article, "What shall I say? This is a paradise."
Another relevant aspect of authoritarianism in Singapore is that it is fully supported by an overwhelming majority of its people. The government and the people of Singapore have struck a social contract, accepting restraint on individual freedom in exchange for social order and political stability. In light of the current epidemic of random violence and urban anarchy in the United States, it is difficult to fault Singapore's decision to do so.
Lee Kuan Yew says that in order to enjoy freedom, you must have an opportunity to exercise freedom. The question must then be asked: Which society is more free -- Singapore or the United States? Singapore today has almost zero crime, no drug problem and no pollution. In the United States, on the other hand, the proliferation of individual rights has led to the breakdown of civil society in certain areas and, as a result, paradoxically, the diminution of the freedom to exercise these rights.
Lastly, there is the cultural problem. No human government can hope to claim that it is the best form of government in all cases and for all people. Indeed, authoritarianism may be more compatible in Confucian societies of Asia where, unlike the West, respect for authority has traditionally been the norm, and where pluralism and dissent have been usually absent from the political culture.
Authoritarianism is often blamed for this century's world wars and mass suffering, but authoritarianism need not conjure up the image of Stalin, Hitler or Orwell's memorable metaphor: a boot in your face -- forever. The Asian model of authoritarianism has been a laboratory for economic growth and social cohesion. It has also been a stepping-stone to eventual democratization. Moreover, in the case of Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, authoritarianism has proven its permanence and legitimacy.
