Custom Search
Benevolent Dictators
Submitted by fyl on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 06:32.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the Ben Linder List inspired by Chuck Kaufman's Open Letter to Nicaragua Solidarity Activists. As your would expect, opinion varies from the FSLN is good to the FSLN is bad with a lot of people taking various positions in between including "it's the best choice for now". Well, that got me thinking about benevolent dictators again.
Why again? Well, in the Free Software world, this is actually not a foreign concept. For example, Guido van Rossum, creator of the Python language, calls himself the Benovolent Dictator for Life. I had the pleasure of interviewing Guido about 10 years ago. A scheduled 30 minute interview turned into an afternoon and evening of chatting and I left with the feeling that if I was looking for a Benovolent Dictator, he would be high on my list of choices.
A Google search turned up an article about Singapore. It calls (now ex-)Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew a Benovolent Dictator and talks about how Singapore has achieved the American dream, but not in the American way. From the article:
To produce his economic miracle, Lee Kuan Yew has interfered with every aspect of Singaporean life. To control population growth he set up free family planning clinics. Then he mounted education campaigns ("Plan your family small") and decreed that women having third-or-more babies would get shorter maternity leave, higher hospital charges, and less income tax relief. There is a $5000 reward for mothers who agree to be sterilized after their second child. Sterilized parents get top priority for public housing, and their children get into desirable schools.
Reading this lead me to Wikipedia to find out more about Singapore. What I read is interesting. Clearly, it is a success story for a country (while it really is just a city on an island, it has a population similar to that of Nicaragua). It's success is clearly a result of what we like to call "social engineering" with an attached sneer.
Now, I don't know how to compare what the current Nicaraguan government is doing to the Singapore story but what this research did do for me was make me realize that I need to accept that the goal of government is always social engineering and that the end result is what the people under that government attain—not that the actions of the government fit some artificial criteria that we label as "good".
Um…
Excuse me fyl but I’ve got to say this one: The American dream is the American way. My claim that “It’s impossible for “benevolent” dictators to get it “right” ” stands. They’re better off giving up the American dream altogether until they’re ready to achieve it the American way.
Singapore has achieved the Singapore dream. Whatever it is. My guess is it’s something with an American semblance. Why? Now I really don’t have a clue. I don’t know why anyone who is turned off with the American way would want to resemble anything close to the American dream.
There’s obviously more to Singapore than just a mock. More like something akin to lack of practicality. There’s a thought. Lack of practicality is probably what’s missing in the U.S. economy.
Um…
got ahead of myself…
Lack of practicality is probably what should be missing in the U.S. economy.
what dream?
What dream precisely is that you are referring to? That a guy who lives in the street can end up as US president if only he works hard? Well sorry, but that just isn't and wasn't ever the case. Actually, social mobility in Europe and Canada/USA is the lowest in Britain and the USA -- the countries with the most liberal trade laws and with the least state intervention in income redistribution. Check here: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf and here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-377283376867873697
It's easy for me of course, as a European, who has always just seen "the American dream" as being a myth, but I assure you that I am just as critical of many European myths that are just as far away from reality.
The US "democracy" includes to have basically a to-headed monster int he shape of the democratic and republican party with one power elite ruling indefinitely. In addition, throughout it's history, the principles of relative freedom of it's citizens have not counted in the rest of the world. Ho Chi Minh came to the US and tried to get them to help with getting a state structure copied after the US installed in Vietnam, but basically they just send him away and decided to fight against instead of for him. Right here in this country, they in practice (although not officially) installed a hard-handed dictator. Etc.
On top of that: the wealth that is in the US, is not all produced by US Americans in the US.
The theoretical debate about that went on around 1910-1920 and you can google "Rosa Luxemburg" and "Lenin" for "imperialism" (one does not have to be a supporter of Lenin's action in the establishment of the Soviet Union to have his economic theories make sense. Here "at home" Augusto C. Sandino picked up on a lot of that, although I think he was partially somewhat confused and it's probably more productive to check out Carlos Fonseca.
But there are also other, less radical and less theoretical sources. The UN Comision Economica para America Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) gives out the CEPAL-review, which is interesting reading on the economic exploitation of Latin America by western countries, and various strategies on how to get out of it.
But the profound one and most easily accessible is likely the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis, which states that countries that produce primary goods basically are f***ed over time, because prices for their goods deteriorate in comparison to the prices of industrial goods which they need to import: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prebisch-Singer_hypothesis
-- Johannes Wilm http://www.johanneswilm.org
At the expense of ???
Every piece of social engineering (and the "American dream" is certainly an example) makes decisions about who/what group wins and who/what group loses. If we look back historically, we can see a lot of losers (Guatemala in 1954, for example) where created to make that American dream happen.
Today, with the American dream crumbling, we are likely to see a lot more on the "downside" of that dream. While it has yet to all play out, I think a lot of the American middle class who thought they were part of that dream just got cut out/left out.
Now, I don't know much about Singapore (but am learning) but the "miracle" being described certainly was at the expense of someone else. That is going to be true with any miracle—I am just asking if you have to pick "democracy" (whatever that might mean to you) to make those decisions for "the greater good" (with the same whatever that might mean to you) qualification added?
human ability
Miracles
Let me define what I intended with the use of "miracle". I was thinking in terms of "look at us—we are doing so much better than everyone else". I see the alternative as "we want to do better so we work with others and we all benefit".
To apply this to my Guatemala 1954 example, the U.S. government overthrew a democratic government because that government's social engineering included helping its people at a cost to a U.S. corporation (United Fruit). If, instead, a solution had been reached that respected the Guatemalan government, it is likely that a lot of people in Guatemala would have benefited significantly at a minimal cost to United Fruit and/or possibly a slightly higher price for bananas in the U.S.
In today's business jargon, this is win-win. Unfortunately, many times this is hard to implement when you are up for re-election in the next year or two.
Costa Rican 1948 revolution
I have not read an in depth history of either Costa Rica or Guatemala yet, but can someone give me reasons why the 1948 revolution in Costa Rica which instituted many benefits for workers (also affecting US corporations) and other reforms was successful (no coup with US backing) while the 1954 change in government in Guatemala was not successful?
O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.
I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)
My input
I am no expert on the Costa Rica revolution but, from what I have read, it really was an internal fight. While there were some strange things (such as Nicaragua's Somoza supporting the Communists), it really was a battle of internal politics. There was no direct U.S. involvement other than a threat that helped determine a winner.
The overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala was a very different situation. Arbenz was democratically elected and there was no dispute in Guatemala of that. In today's terms he would probably be considered a Social Democrat.
As part of his reforms he wanted to give land to landless peasants. His idea was to purchase unused land from large land owners at the price it was declared on the tax roles.
United Fruit was a huge landowner and most (something like 85%) of than land was unused so they were concerned. Well, a US CIA plot was put together and implemented (which did involve Somoza, by the way) to overthrow Arbenz.
Chinese separatism!
Strange how the PRC Chinese (or at least the CPC) oppose any form of "separatism" except in the the case of ethnic Chinese seceding from Malaysia!
O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.
I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)
Well, but Singapore has some
Well, but Singapore has some serious problems in concerns of using very harsh penalties on minor crimes. Also, it uses a work stock from neighboring Malaysia that sort of unction like Nicaraguans in Costa Rica (underpaid cheap labor that can be kicked out at a moments notice or when the economy goes bad). I think it is generally a problem when comparing some countries with others and seeing that one did better than the other, if they depend on one-another for that success. Malaysia, for example, couldn't just copy Singapore, precisely because Singapore depends on Malaysia. Another common mistake is comparing some of the south-east Asian tiger economies with Latin America. It is then said that these countries succeeded using neo-liberal strategies, whereas Latin America with it's protectionism failed. Well, for one thing, several of these countries received unusually good trade deals. So for example South-Korea was allowed to export to the US, while at the same time it was allowed to protect its own market. That meant that companies like Hyundai could slowly expand internationally, while simultaneously not have to fear foreign competition in South Korea itself. Now the market for cars in the US has of course some size limits, and so the same couldn't be (and wasn't) offered to the rest of the developing world. But I am rambling…
-- Johannes Wilm http://www.johanneswilm.org