Rotorhead
08/21/2007, 16:34:31
Author Profile | Edit
|
My research methodology had Indonesia as "other than democracy" ( same for Mexico then, this was prior to the PRI looising to PAN ) with a high instabity number. The Philippines were unstable as well due to political violence and attempted coups after the fall of Marcos. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore rated as stable in the late 1980's. Malaysia was at that turning point and in fact sufferes from some instability in certain regions. In general one party states are less stable than representative governments simply because power changes from elections due not typically result in huge changes in national policy as it sometimes does with power changes in non-democracies. No one could argue that the fall of Stalin or Mao didn't result in major changes in policy in Soviet and Chinese societies and this sort of upheaval is avoided mostly with democracies. With democracies power changes are institutionalized, happen regularly, peacefully and do not result in huge changes in national direction.
Touring countries is nice, I have done plenty of that as well, but it is no substitute for solid quantitative research on the subject of the effects of policitical instability on a nation's development. One of the thingds that first attracted me to economics was that just about everything we studied cut across the grain of "conventional wisdom" What we were taught mostly contradicted all the things our parents and other teachers thought they knew. It makes you look at the world in a very different way. Then you add the rigor of math that backs the theory. And by the way, I am quite familiar with the history of Singapore, how the Brits imprisoned Lees opponents on the eve of elections, how the boundry between the civil service and PAP is vague indeed. Singapore is familiar terrain in more than just Orchard Road dude, it is an interesting contrast to Hong Kong and in many ways the exception that proves the rules regarding several aspects of economic orthodoxy. I like Singapore but I worry that absent any democratic traditions successors to Lee will not have the imagination to guide Singapore as successfully as he did, and the sheer weight of all the rules there could drive away other imaginative souls to less restrictive places in the world. Geez, when you cannot even flop on a park bench during your lunch break without worrying a cop will roust you it's ridiculous. Paid potty monitors! Singapore needs to lighten up. I also worry that a future government that is unsuccessful would not yield to popular discontent, setting the stage for social unrest. Singapore doesn't give voice to any dissent, and if the PAP ever fails to perform, there is no organized oppostion to take the reins, nor is any permitted. The stage is thus set for a showdown. The PAP clings to power against the will of people who are dissaffected. Even Japan, for all the overwhelming power of the LDP allows oppositon parties and from time to time they gain electoral victories as was the case last month. Even this outlet to popular discontent is not permitted in Singapore and this is exactly the sort of fragile condition typical of all authoritarian one party states. Mugabe right now is the epitome of this, but imagine a new younger generation of PAP leaders who fail to grow their city as Lee did. Less was exceptional, his antecessors may not be. Then what when there is no oppostion with other competitive ideas allowed? What are the citizens of this city to do? What is their outlet? They have no legal outlet and this is ultimately a source of instability.
The pilot is always the first person at the scene of the crash.
|
