Neither is right

An exchange between President Noynoy and Senator Marcos was provoked by the Libya crisis. Sen. Bongbong said we would have been a Singapore if there had been no Edsa. President Noynoy shot back – we would have been a Libya. In my opinion, neither of them is right. Singapore is Singapore, Libya is Libya and the Philippines is the Philippines.

Listening to media reports on the crisis there is a danger of losing perspective to the need for speedy coverage. It is essential not to lose sight of this – authoritarian government per se is not evil. Neither can it be removed from context. Moreover, authoritarian government can be turned into a dynamic concept.

To be successful, it must create and recreate itself as circumstances change. Indeed it becomes problematic when it is stuck with its power. It then becomes out of touch with the needs of its citizens.

In countries where it succeeds there are almost always exceptional leaders. When these are successful, the authoritarian government is accepted and can be prolonged to an indefinite time, shorter in some, longer in others but there is a trade-off. An authoritarian government, if it is to stay in power must govern the country well and its citizens, more or less contented. It is more judged by results. Ideally, a mechanism for quick removal of government is necessary if it does not live up to its promises.

Let’s hear an exchange between Bloomberg’s Charlie Rose and Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong when he asked the prime minister if his country was a democracy, you know, Jeffersonian democracy. He replied no if you mean having an election every four years.

“So how do you measure your commitment to democracy?”

“I think we measure it by the legitimacy of the government and by the results, how Singapore works and whether Singaporeans are able to have a better life.”

“Is it Jeffersonian democracy?”

“I don’t — we don’t measure ourselves by an American model to how — to what extent we approximate you. The countries which approximate you most closely in Asia, probably the Philippines, operates very differently from American democracy. So we’re not trying to approximate you. We are trying to find a formula which works for Singapore. “

It is not authoritarianism that is bad but how it is used for development and good governance. Filipinos would agree we could make use of authoritarian government because of our lack of discipline and respect for the law. But there must be a mechanism to remove it from power in less messy ways than edsas, revolution or God forbid civil war when it does not perform or becomes abusive.

A shift to parliamentary government would provide that mechanism through a no-confidence vote. The more difficult problem is to find the acceptable and qualified leader to run the authoritarian government in the mold of Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and Mahathir Mohamed in Malaysia.

* * *

But as Asian political analyst Mahbubani has correctly said, “if current Western policies of punishing authoritarian governments had been in force in the 1960s and 1970s, the spectacular economic growth of Taiwan and South Korea would have been cut off at its very inception by Western demands that the governments then in power be replaced by less authoritarian regimes.”

When countries adopt authoritarian governments to pursue economic development, it leads to economic and social changes for open and participative societies that Taiwan and South Korea have become.

* * *

There are Filipino connections to besieged Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi. Through the years, he has kept close touch with the peace process in Mindanao. A diplomat once told me that he became especially fond of the Philippines during the Jabidah Massacre when Nur Misuari, a young UP professor from the UP asked his help because “they are killing us.” Then there is the Tripoli Agreement that became a benchmark for all negotiations that came after.

I personally met Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, the son in Manila on one of his visits. He had a different image then from what appears on television today — standing atop a car calling on Libyans to fight the protesters ironically waving the royal flag. He came to Manila to try and patch up Muslim groups together — MNLF, MILF, ARMM etc. — to effectively negotiate.

He was pushing to modernize and “return Libya to the mainstream of moderate politics.” He said the Saif al-Islam Gadhafi Development Foundation is dedicated to uplifting the lives of fellow Muslims around the world. He feels strongly that poverty is driving Muslims to terrorism.

“ When there is no food in the cupboard, Muslim or non-Muslim is tempted to take the gun, more especially if it is given to him. Unfortunately most of the dirt poor are Muslims,” he told me.

Urbane and sophisticated, Saif sought support from moderates and centrists. It was an uphill struggle with old guards in Gadhafi’s court alarmed at the speed he wanted Libya to modernize. He has had to go on exile to take the heat off in the struggle for power in his country.

Just before he left Tripoli to take on a banking job in London or Paris, he met with visiting Indian leaders to discuss IT and computer training/ education to the Libyan school children and how Indians could assist in this program. He hopes to provide all Libyan students with a laptop and web access. This project pledged 1.2 million machines to put up the first e-democracy. The scheme was supported by the UN Development Program.

So how did it all change? Gadhafi Sr. has been ranting that Al Qaeda was behind the protesters. How?

It may be remembered that when Saif announced the Bulgarian nurses would not be executed he was condemned by an Al-Qaeda member. There may be something more to Gadhafi’s ranting against extremists who didn’t want Saif’s shift to moderate policies.

I had the impression at the time that there was a special effort to change the image of Libya with Saif as its main proponent. He wanted to remove the notion that his country is still a global pariah.

Insiders say he got into trouble when he publicly called Libya’s political and economic elite a “mafia” of “crooks and agents”. He demanded human rights and democratic reforms, promoted foreign investments and privatization. As Gadhafi’s son he called for an end of the revolutionary state. The old elite struck back. The next time I saw him again was on TV standing atop a car fighting for his father’s government.