Running A Country
Countries of the third world were beggared by the socialist wave that swept the world through the middle of the last century. In hindsight all the towering figures of the non-aligned world of the 50s were not even great politicians, the vision they had for their people was based mostly on grandiose, economically bankrupt plans. In contrast to totalitarian regimes of the communist world, the free market economies of some dictatorships were far more successful, albeit with generous economic help (US AID) from Uncle Sam, the US being the doyen of all capitalist countries. With the aspirations of the people the need for democracy grew stronger, even those leaders were found having feet of clay. One lesson should have been learnt here, in the developed world with its vast economic and industrial base the private sector with its sound management and good business practices kept services and utilities within the buying power of the masses, when free market philosophy is applied in the developing world, it puts an enormous, even back-breaking burden on the common man.
The prime mission of the leadership of the third world is how to balance the need for efficient management against keeping necessary socio-economic facilities within the reach of the common citizen. While economic models can be emulated, each country has to apply it differently for its own particular needs. Obviously there has to be a political model to go with it, the price the citizens have to pay is the measure of what stands for democracy in the third world. By bringing in a clear and transparent system of justice backed by an effective law and order machine, most of the citizen’s rights can be safeguarded. With other freedoms intact, very few citizens will then protest their apparent lack of freedom of expression. Leaders without personal motivation and/or interest, and without being addicted to nepotism and favouritism, enjoy the confidence of the common man down the line. When such a transparent model exists for the citizens, the “great silent majority” gladly gives up some tenets of an unfettered democracy. While the aim of every State should be to aspire for the full measure of democracy, this has to be a gradual process. The best application of economic and political pragmatism in the third world in the last century was in Singapore. Fifty years on Singapore is hardly the paragon of democracy, yet on the political side it is a successful State that provides full protection to its citizen to enjoy the full economic benefits of life. The Singapore model has been emulated by the Chinese to suit their political environment, unlike the Soviet Union where Glasnost (openness) before Perestroika (economic progress) brought the Soviet Union to its knees.
Lee Kwan Yew was a dictator and remains one, he took over this island city-State in the mid-50s and in a space of less than 10-15 years, lifted it into the first world. As a model of personal propriety (he still lives on Anson Road in the same house he was in 1958, he has not moved to any palace) he brought in good governance across the board by the simple expedient of recognizing and rewarding merit, and rendering swift and effective punishment where it was due. No uncles to protect their favoured nephews here!
On the economic side, the utilities and services are run by the public sector extremely efficiently, and thus costs stay within control. The public sector continues to provide the basic requirements of the citizen eg. food, water, housing, medicine, telecommunication, transportation, etc. When Lee Kwan Yew started in the late 50s he was not blessed with the qualified executives Singapore has today at the level in the tiers below him.
He started with a bunch of men who virtually had no education, what to talk about managerial experience. But they were honest and selfless, and by draconian measures he ensured they remained honest and selfless. He ensured that all those in the public sector had salaries and percs commensurate to that being earned by similar employees in the private sector. He also made sure that anyone who showed even a hint of going the route of nepotism, favoritism and corruption, was removed without ceremony from that post, the person and his family thus loses out on the generous means of livelihood they used to enjoy and have become used to. The looters also made to return all the ill-gotten gains or restitute the State for his/her excesses.
The private sector may indulge in corrupting the public sector, it does not accept corruption of any kind among its own employees, conversely the public sector is normally “above accountability”. Singapore accepted arrogance from Lee Kwan Yew, as an honest leader with great integrity and purpose he achieved something to be arrogant about. Most of those who act arrogant have nothing to be arrogant about, it is a veneer to cover their own shortcomings, a bluster to hide their inferiority complex. Regretfully this psychological disorder on the part of leaders shoved into a position of authority by nepotism, favouritism and/or simply fate spells disaster not only for those whose destinies they influence by their actions but also for the entity they control. Obviously this has commensurate debilitating effect in both morale and performance. Is there a mechanism to hold such people accountable? If a person destroys the entity he is made responsible for how does he answer for his excesses? Like corruption, one must bring to task public servants for mismanagement and maladministration, they should not be allowed to simply walk away.
There is a responsibility on those who chose the leaders of public sector corporations. First they must chose those who are technically “competent” i.e. they have experience in running corporations that are specialised. There are always those who can excel at managing any entity, these miracle men (or “persons”) are few and far between, exceptions to the rule. We cannot take calculated risks, choosing leaders purely on reputation. This false perception is usually created by the media, their need for ad revenues overcoming their better judgment in glossing over the facts. Every leader must realize the consequences of selecting a bad manager. If the facts were not known while appointing the current individual, then one must have the courage to correct this anomaly before it destroys the public sector entity that the person has been made responsible for.
Other than bad selection of individuals, the government must be pragmatic about selecting what is to remain in the public sector and what has to be privatised. The population must have access to electricity, fuel, etc within their reach. In the mix of public and private sector, the ratio must be in favour of the under-privileged, those living beneath the poverty line, the ratio differing from State to State in keeping with local conditions. The public private ratio has to be suitably weighted to give succour to the less privileged citizens of the State, that is the prime responsibility of the leaders of any third world country.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment