The rule of the harsh or strict, is it necessary?

[ray245]

When I reflect back at Singapore, and could see the rather heavy handed and strict rule by the PAP, I keep wondering about this issue.

In a developing nation, is it necessary to have a strong or strict leader being able to enforce his will, in order for the country to progress? While one can argue that strictness isn't the only thing that builds up a developing nation, and other factors like having a clear development policy, clear economic plan and praticality is required as well, consider this. An able leader in a developing nation would require a strong grip on his nation, in order to develop his nation. Several examples like Taiwan and Singapore can be made.

On the opposing site, people would argue that strict rule will not benefit the nations because it will cause dissent and unhappiness among the general public. And dissent can easily erupt into instability for many nations.


So I seek the advice and opinions of people here, is it necessary to be a strict leader or party in a developing nation, putting certain restriction on freedom of speech, opposing civil disobedience and in some case, destroy the political influence of your political opponent?

[Guardsman Bass]

I think it's more that you need stable, consistent government (note that this does not necessarily mean non-corrupt government, or democratic government - just your basically functional government) than specifically dictatorship. Singapore had and has that.

[ray245]

I think it's more that you need stable, consistent government (note that this does not necessarily mean non-corrupt government, or democratic government - just your basically functional government) than specifically dictatorship. Singapore had and has that.

However, doesn't the nature of democracy undermines a stable and consistent government? For most developing nations, they would need several years of a consistent government to see the end results. I mean the growth of the many developing nations is not a result of 5 or even 10 years. At times, the growth of a nation takes 20 over years.

[Sarevok]

Is not there a "elite" clique of ruling classes and upper class peoples in Singapore who are above "normal" citizens ?

[Knife]

I think it's more that you need stable, consistent government (note that this does not necessarily mean non-corrupt government, or democratic government - just your basically functional government) than specifically dictatorship. Singapore had and has that.

However, doesn't the nature of democracy undermines a stable and consistent government? For most developing nations, they would need several years of a consistent government to see the end results. I mean the growth of the many developing nations is not a result of 5 or even 10 years. At times, the growth of a nation takes 20 over years.

Why wouldn't democracy provide it? As long as it was stable government for that period of time it would cover Grardsman's point.

[Twoyboy]

I think it's more that you need stable, consistent government (note that this does not necessarily mean non-corrupt government, or democratic government - just your basically functional government) than specifically dictatorship. Singapore had and has that.

However, doesn't the nature of democracy undermines a stable and consistent government? For most developing nations, they would need several years of a consistent government to see the end results. I mean the growth of the many developing nations is not a result of 5 or even 10 years. At times, the growth of a nation takes 20 over years.

Stable doesn't necessarily mean the SAME government need be in power, just that the governments have have common goals and similar methods of developing the country. When most democratic nations elect a new leader, sweet fuck all changes on the surface.

[ray245]

I think it's more that you need stable, consistent government (note that this does not necessarily mean non-corrupt government, or democratic government - just your basically functional government) than specifically dictatorship. Singapore had and has that.

However, doesn't the nature of democracy undermines a stable and consistent government? For most developing nations, they would need several years of a consistent government to see the end results. I mean the growth of the many developing nations is not a result of 5 or even 10 years. At times, the growth of a nation takes 20 over years.

Why wouldn't democracy provide it? As long as it was stable government for that period of time it would cover Grardsman's point.

Ok, I get your point.

However, even if you do allow elections to take place, do you as the ruling party in a democratic election need adopt a harsh and strict rule to provide the stability in a 3rd world nation, by taking out your political opposition?

[Shroom Man 777]

"First world" countries like America, Britain and France have ended up in many civil wars and other disasters, upheavals, revolutions and assorted bloody messes in their centuries of existence.

Most of our third world Asian, Africa, Latin American countries are colonies and have barely gotten by our first century of "independence". But I think we'll get there... eventually.

[PainRack]

Ok, I get your point.

However, even if you do allow elections to take place, do you as the ruling party in a democratic election need adopt a harsh and strict rule to provide the stability in a 3rd world nation, by taking out your political opposition?

Quick newsflash....
Democratic and stable government in Phillipines=relatively prosperous.
Reject democracy for stability and harsh rule under Marcos? Well, we don't need to talk about what happens next.

Take a good look at the US government over the last 3 decades, until George W Bush Jnr, despite the various leaders possessing dramatic political and personality differences, their domestic and foreign policies are similar in key points. Even when both Clinton and George W Bush jnr both opposed George W Bush snr China policies, they ultimately followed the same suit tailored for their different personalities.
Given the US example, its more important to let good leaders into the ruler position as opposed to having "stability" or "harsh" or "strict" rules.

[Broomstick]

So I seek the advice and opinions of people here, is it necessary to be a strict leader or party in a developing nation, putting certain restriction on freedom of speech, opposing civil disobedience and in some case, destroy the political influence of your political opponent?

No, it is not necessary. It is, however, one option.

There's more than one way to run a country, and more than one system of governing that will maintain a nation. Democracy and variations of it are currently in vogue, but other systems have worked quite well in the past.

The US went from being a poor former colony to a world power in 200 years (less, actually) via democracy and capitalism so obviously that system worked for that nation, but England utilized a spectrum of monarchy -> limited monarchy -> parliamentary democracy quite effectively as well. For something different than either of those, Ancient Egypt did quite well for a long time using the Divine King model. Ancient Rome was very successful with a series of military dictators (although some of them were whackjobs and succession was frequently a problem).

And, of course, your favorite, China, did quite well using the warlord model, with the top surviving warlord becoming Emperor. It was a long, long, time ago but in the far past China, too, was once a "developing nation".

I think what is required is a government that provides a certain level of stability, but is not so stringent as to stifle the people. In other words, the average person needs enough stability to make long-range plans (marriage, family, retirement) but not such a strict level of control that the person is prevented from achieving those goals. How you get to that state is almost irrelevant.

[de.rigueur]

When I reflect back at Singapore, and could see the rather heavy handed and strict rule by the PAP, I keep wondering about this issue.

In a developing nation, is it necessary to have a strong or strict leader being able to enforce his will, in order for the country to progress? While one can argue that strictness isn't the only thing that builds up a developing nation, and other factors like having a clear development policy, clear economic plan and praticality is required as well, consider this. An able leader in a developing nation would require a strong grip on his nation, in order to develop his nation. Several examples like Taiwan and Singapore can be made.

On the opposing site, people would argue that strict rule will not benefit the nations because it will cause dissent and unhappiness among the general public. And dissent can easily erupt into instability for many nations.


So I seek the advice and opinions of people here, is it necessary to be a strict leader or party in a developing nation, putting certain restriction on freedom of speech, opposing civil disobedience and in some case, destroy the political influence of your political opponent?

Well, I don't think that it is necessary for progress. Having a stranglehold on a population simply expedites whatever developments that are forthcoming. I believe that progress does not necessarily require such a policy.

Of course, there are many dissenting voices that are unhappy with such a form of leadership. People in Singapore whinge about how soullessly materialistic, elitist, uncompassionate (I could go on) the populace has become - however, they still continue to support the incumbent leaders. Why? Perhaps the lure of economic and social development bringing material gain and comfort to the majority is too irresistable.

Is not there a "elite" clique of ruling classes and upper class peoples in Singapore who are above "normal" citizens ?

Indeed, the leaders of Singapore have much disdain for the intelligence of the average Singaporean, unfortunately. They somehow seem to think that the populace is unable to make informed decisions for themselves, thus resulting in the "uniquely Singaporean" perspective on almost everything - the political system, the government-press relationship, even claiming to have a unique blend of Asian values. Hm, I wonder. Of course, this becomes such a convincing (and convenient) justification for the paternalistic form of government employed by the PAP.

[K. A. Pital]

The only thing that matters is modernization with the least suffering. Whether it can be achieved by an iron fist rule, or by a relaxed rule to ease social tensions, is irrelevant - I would not say iron fist rule is absolutely required, but the larger a nation becomes, the harder it is to control and therefore as a general issue, the power needs to be more strict if not necessarily more authoritarian.

[ray245]

Which reminded me of one thing, if your political opponent choose to 'destroy' or damage the stability of the nation in their quest for power so to speak, doesn't this mean it is justified to 'destroy' them to maintain stability for your nation?

[Thanas]

Which reminded me of one thing, if your political opponent choose to 'destroy' or damage the stability of the nation in their quest for power so to speak, doesn't this mean it is justified to 'destroy' them to maintain stability for your nation?

Will it fix the situation? Most likely no. Do you really want to set the same example as they did by employing the same methods? If so, how are you different from them?

If your opponent is already in a position to disrupt the stability of the nation, that means he already has a significant powerbase. Read Machiavelli, he gives some instructions on how to deal with those. BUT: In history, people who used the same methods more or less turned out to be cut from the same cloth. That does not mean that they cannot be capable rulers (Augustus, for example), but whether it makes them morally superior is another question.

[ray245]

Which leads us to the question, should you in some way, sacrifice your morals to build your nation?