Singapore

By Muhammad Muzdaleefa

Founding leaders of nations matter. A country’s founding moment is often a make-or-mar moment in the life of the country. The trajectory on which the founding leadership sets the country, as well the power of their founding example, often defines and determines the future course of events way past the founding generation. Founding precedents tend to have an exceptional degree of endurance, because founding leaders command a kind and degree of legitimacy and license that is exceptional and which gives them and their example and precedents a special status and the propelling force of path dependency in their country’s history.

George Washington’s founding example, of not offering himself up for election again after serving two terms as (first) president of the new republic, even though nothing in the US constitution at the time imposed term limits on an incumbent president, initiated a tradition of American presidents not going beyond two terms; a tradition that remained in place until Franklin Delano Roosevelt breached it in the 1930s/40s, causing it to be restored by constitutional amendment. Additionally, the contemporary trajectory of American federalism, including the enduring fault lines in its politics, can be traced back to the Federalist/anti-Federalist split in the founding generation; between the Hamiltonian (strong federal/center) and the Jeffersonian/Madisonian (strong states) visions.

The death of Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore and its prime minister from 1959 to 1990 (then senior minister after that), has brought the usual apologists of autocratic rule in Africa out of their holes, doing what they do best: making all manner of inapt comparisons and prophecies of “what would have been” had one or the other favorite African autocrat been allowed to rule for as long as Lee Kuan Yew did. There is the implicit suggestion that similar longevity in office would have turned Lee’s African contemporaries into a Lee Kuan Yew or transformed their African states from Third World to First. It is a fanciful thought, one not borne out by the record.

First of all, Africa’s first generation of autocrats did, in fact, stay in power for very long periods. Nyerere, Kaunda, Banda, Houphouet Biogny, Mobutu, Bongo, Senghor, all were in power continuously for nearly three decades. And many current ones, including Mugabe, Museveni, and Biya have equaled or broken the record. None has managed any transformation of the Lee Kuan Yew kind, except in the opposite direction. So, the difference between Lee Kuan Yew and his African contemporaries was not just a matter of longevity in power, it was far more than that. Time itself is a value-neutral resource. It is what you do with the time you have that determines the future course of events. Africa’s autocrats did very different things with their time in power than Lee Kuan Yew did with his. They were bound to reap different results.

Second, while Lee Kuan Yew was an authoritarian leader, he was not an autocrat. It is an important distinction. Lee built and worked through institutions. He did not destroy the rule of law. Lee’s government passed and enforced draconian laws, but arbitrary and personal rule did not displace government through institutions, rules, and procedures. Lee also assembled and worked with a solid team (the first group of which is featured in the book “Lee’s Lieutenants”). His was not a one-man project; he was captain of a team. Lee’s Lieutenants brought to the table a complement of talents and abilities that Lee, as leader, effectively harnessed and synthesised into a shared vision. There was no “Lee Kuan Yewism” to which all were obliged to swear allegiance or else. And while Lee Kuan Yew did not like or think much of his opposition, he never declared a one-party state. His party contested elections and won those elections repeatedly. The franchise was not aborted. Nor were opposition parties. Absence of electoral turnover is inconsistent with competitive parliamentary politics. The Liberal Party’s overwhelming hold on power in postwar Japan is a case in point.

Lee Kuan Yew ruled for as long as he did, in part because he did not replace Singapore’s Westminster parliamentary system with a presidential system. The title “President” apparently had no particular allure for the supremely self-confident Lee. He was happy to be a “mere” prime minister, which meant that, as long as his party continued to win a majority in parliamentary elections and he retained his own seat and leadership of the party, he was free to remain prime minister. Term limits have been traditionally associated with presidential systems, not parliamentary systems. Today, his party remains in power, even if its electoral strength has diminished over time.

Lee’s contemporaries in Africa, on the other hand, moved quickly to replace their parliamentary systems with presidential rule. It was one step on the road to autocracy. It freed them from accountability to their party, to cabinet, and to parliament. From that foundation, other blocks in the autocratic project fell into place.

There are many other ways in which Lee Kuan Yew and his African contemporaries were fundamentally different. They, like Lee, did not care much for human rights, free speech, free press, and the like. Lee Kuan Yew believed in “Asian values”, not “Western democracy”. And his African contemporaries too defended their own idiosyncratic versions of African exceptionalism. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end.

Instructively, Lee Kuan Yew recalls telling himself, after a 1964 visit to Africa that took him to 17 countries, “I was not optimistic about Africa”. Lee said. And while in Lagos in January 1966 for the Commonwealth Heads of State conference, Lee again recalls, after observing the Nigerian government at work: “I went to bed that night convinced that they were a different people playing to a different set of rules.”

Nothing is gained, except more of the same escapism and revisionism that keeps us stuck in the counter-developmental past, by trying to cast one or the other African autocrat in the mold of a Lee Kuan Yew. We have had no Lee Kuan Yews. Not that we need or must have one. But, well, just saying!

By Najib Ahmad, PhD

We often hear people saying that ‘he [Sen. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso] did it with the government funds.’ And so? Oh, you expect him to do it with his money; then, you will ponder whether he’s worthy of their gratitude. But, this is not how things have been done right from the inception.

If you read over the history of the previous great Muslim rulers like Umar Ibn Abdulaziz (61-101 AH), may Allah have mercy on him, you will realize the incredible impressions he left on people despite being a caliphate for a short period. But, it is known that all he had achieved and built weren’t from his funds. Still, he’s remembered and admired.

People often appreciate the history of how other nations developed, which primarily transpired through human development. But, for example, how do you think today’s China and Singapore got it right? Do you think they only wake up to all this in the morning? No, it was because some leaders decided to do it right and went on to create policies that enabled them to reach where they are today.

For instance, if you take China, they unconditionally relish Deng Xiaoping – the architect of modern China. While Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew is also highly recognized as the founder of modern Singapore, they constantly appropriate him for its development. During their time as leaders of developing nations, all they have accomplished weren’t with their funds but with the government funds.

Those leaders’ priorities then were primarily policies on education and the industrial revolution transformation. Sending students, including the peasant farmers’ children, to universities worldwide via scholarships was part of Mr Xiaoping’s most significant policies that China benefited from. His initiatives have matured into a whole system, i.e., the China Scholarship Council (CSC) and China Postdoctoral Science Fund. This remarkable initiative alone helps them strengthen their universities and vocational colleges with a quality workforce and, in turn, enables them to become the world’s industrial powerhouse.

Today, check all your household belongings to verify the above. Those two leaders are still relevant in China’s and Singapore’s present days. You can’t underestimate their significance no matter how you try due to the enormous opportunities and equal advantages they created for their people.

I understand your frustrations, which is why one person out of more than 12 million people of Kano is receiving too many accolades. First of all, it is their choice to appreciate him, mind you. This is because he means so much to them. The good thing is, you can’t deny them this satisfaction even if you try. So, why the resentment? Allow those that prefer to do what suits them to continue thanking and re-thanking him till the end of time, if that is their wish. What’s your problem with their choice, fisabilillahi?

Above all, the main thing to look at is that appreciating Kwankwaso’s effort doesn’t physically hurt you or anyone else or destroy any of our fundamental values. In fact, it is teaching people to learn to recognize good deeds and be thankful to whoever is responsible or part of their progress in life. Isn’t this a harmless mannerism to learn, emulate, and propagate?

Dr Najib Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Shandong University, China. He can be contacted via namuhammad03@gmail.com.