Kevin Kline, who played Professor William Hundert in the 2003 American drama film dubbed ‘The Emperor’s club’, posed the following questions to his students in Classic 101: “What will your contribution be? How will history remember you?” Before these rhetorical cum thought-provoking questions, he rode them off on the rollercoaster of Shutruk Nahunte’s historical riffraff adventurism. Concluding, he averred uncompromisingly that “great conquest without contribution is meaningless”.
Alas! Lee Kuan Yew is no more – he died on 23 March, 2015 at 91. He was not just a statesman extraordinaire but also a myth to the Western World. Blending autocracy with patriotism, Yew shattered the Western convention – modernization theory exemplified by W. W. Rostow – by leapfrogging Singapore from a backward colonial entre-pot into a glittering high-tech economy.
“Going it alone” and building virtually everything from scratch, Yew did buttress his logic that the Western model of liberal democracy lacks applicability in Asian countries, hence he evolved what is called in some quarters “authoritarian democracy”.
“Lee Kuan Yew,” Kissinger wrote, “would not be true to himself were he less frank about his analysis of difference between the individualism of the West and the priority for social cohesion in countries such as his and in much of the rest of Asia. He does not ask us to change our patterns, only to refrain from imposing them on societies with different histories and necessities.”
With these principles and quest for personal example, Yew engineered the world’s first miracle of development. Today, Singapore – according to World Bank report – boasts one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world. Yes, these were his contributions and history will forever remember him for that.
Now, who among African leaders can be compared to Lee Kuan Yew? How will history remember the contemporary African leaders? A brief excursus on the problem with African politics and government will suffice.
The problem with African politics and government is not just lack of strong institutions, as Obama observed, but lack of patriotic leaders. Parasitic leadership is Africa’s greatest bane to development – it is on this hub that other problems revolve. It is this problem that separates some contemporary highhanded African leaders from Yew. What have Zimbabweans benefitted from Mugabe’s 34-year rule? What have Cameroonians gained from Biya’s 32-year rule? And Ugandans from Museveni’s 32-year rule? What about Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, Deby of Chad, Al Bashir of Sudan, Jammeh of Gambia, Afwerki of Eritrea? And what of Hasting Banda and Omar Bongo of (un)blessed memories? The answer is nothing! Absolutely nothing, except for abject poverty and dilapidated infrastructure and decrepit polity. And this is why Africa remains underdeveloped.
Coming home to Nigeria, what we see is complete failure of leadership – where lootocracy reigns! Come to think of it, the wealth amassed by former leaders like IBB, Abacha and his family, and other political thieves could have transformed Nigeria into Africa’s USA, but they are not Lee Kuan Yew, not to think of being patriotic. Thus, they looted wealth for their fourth generations. And we continue to suffer!
When some dissenting voices talk about Yew’s authoritarian history, they forget that liberal democracy lacks universal application. The essence of government is its purpose and this essence, Abraham Lincoln told us, is “to do for the people what they can’t do for themselves” – and this is what Yew did for Singaporeans.
What Africans are asking from their leaders is simple: give us water, electricity, house, good healthcare, societal order and security, and good roads! As I consider the good works of Lee Kuan Yew, I am disturbed by the question: who will be Africa’s Lee Kuan Yew?
Jonathan Asikason
