I thought I dispelled the notion that authoritarianism is that significant a factor in the dramatic economic progress of some of our neighbors. As I pointed out, we had 20 years of Mr. Marcos, who suspended press freedom along with everything else we have learned in our civics classes. But that didn’t get us tiger economy status. On the contrary, we lost ground.
Or take Burma, now known as Myanmar. It has been under the iron rule of a band of military dictators but the country and its people are as pathetically poor as ever. I still say the decisive factor is the quality of national leadership and, like Burma, our misfortune is a national inability to produce one who has both the personal qualities that inspire people and the skills to run a country.
Unfortunately, we have been told once too often that freedom and democracy are incompatible with economic growth and development so that we have started to believe it. Or at least, we think there is a need to sacrifice basic freedoms in the early stages of nation building.
This seems to be the lesson we have been taught by Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore experience, Mahathir’s Malaysia and Park Chung Hee’s South Korea. In his keynote address before the national convention of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Washington SyCip said pretty much that – our problem is too much democracy.
Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen, however, disagrees with this conventional wisdom. There is rather little general evidence, Sen writes, that authoritarian governance and suppression of political and civil rights are really beneficial in encouraging economic development. Systematic empirical studies give no real support to the claim.
Rather, the Nobel economist points out, there is now a fairly agreed general list of helpful policies that are more directly related to development. This list includes openness to competition, the use of international markets, a high level of literacy and school education, successful land reform and public provision of incentives for investment, exportation and industrialization.
Sen emphasized "there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that any of these policies is inconsistent with greater democracy and actually had to be sustained by an element of authoritarianism that happened to be present in South Korea or Singapore or China." Sen also demolishes the notion that a specific set of "Asian values" exists that might provide a justification for authoritarian regimes. In fact, Sen argues that open dialogue, civil freedoms and political liberties are prerequisites for sustainable development.
He cautions that it is a mistake to try to judge democracy or political liberty entirely (or primarily) in terms of their effects on economic growth. For one thing, Sen points out, liberty and political freedom are themselves valuable and do not have to be justified in terms of their indirect effects. But the indirect effects are also important, Sen stresses, since political freedom can reinforce economic opportunities, and vice versa.
Well, maybe we need a leader of even higher caliber than Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew – one who can achieve what they have achieved in the economic realm without sacrificing freedom and democracy. Maybe, even a Mahathir or a Lee Kuan Yew would not do as well here. So, until that special kind of leader emerges somehow, we are doomed to muddle through and watch our tiger economy neighbors reach new heights.
According to the reader, one will find the very, very poor Malaysians in the countryside. The minorities for one, "live in shanties/squatter communities over the ocean or on the mountain side." That’s right. I did see a squatter community in Malaysia in my previous visit. But this was an offshore squatter community of Filipinos in Sabah.
Anyway, our reader has a point. It is possible that much of the effort of Mahathir’s 20/20 program was geared toward building showcases in Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Cyberjaya. Come to think of it, even KL’s Chinatown isn’t all that clean even if like most Chinatowns, quite interesting.
There is one other point that another reader who had lived in Malaysia made to me: corruption in the Malaysian bureaucracy is also pretty bad. But, he concedes, they were able to still deliver the miracle to enable Mahathir to retire in a blaze of glory. Corruption was not a roadblock to Malaysia’s progress.
Back here, corruption delivers nothing but hidden wealth to Swiss bank accounts. If only some of that purloined wealth were used to build needed infrastructure, maybe, we wouldn’t have lost out that badly in the economic race with our neighbors. We can’t even operate a graft ridden overpriced airport terminal building we badly need.
I still remain impressed by what I saw. Police visibility was high enough to give a tourist like myself confidence to walk the streets of KL even in the late evening hours. They have well lighted police outposts that seem to be manned by at least one policeman at most hours. And best of all the ordinary Malaysians I talked to seem genuinely proud to be Malaysians. That alone speaks volumes for me.
Incidentally, the waiter who served us in a KL restaurant is named Rizal. But he has not heard of Jose Rizal. Didn’t Malaysia honor Rizal a few years ago as a great Malay?
The song is sung to the tune of "PASKO NA NAMAN". Here goes…
Aktor na naman… Kay lupit ng tadhana
Aktor na nagdaan … Para ba kung kailan lang
Ito ang aktor … Na mabagsik sa bugbugan
Ito ang aktor… Na subsub sa inuman.
Refrain:
Diyos ko! Diyos ko!
Aktor na naman muli!
Ito ba ang ating pinakamimithi?!
Diyos ko! Diyos ko!
Aktor na naman muli!
Tayo ba’y walang ibang mapili?
Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is bchanco@bayantel.com.ph