COVER -> DAY ONE
 |
Democracy is built upon the necessary myth that politicians ought to behave like patrician rulers of old but it is a matter of extreme regret that they never do. The term used for such high-minded behaviour as is supposed to have been demonstrated on a more or less continual basis in the golden age is "Statesmanship". Needless to say, this golden age never took place. The only reason why the Roman Republic is still held in such high esteem by the mistY-eyed classes is that the records of its day-to-day skulduggery were not as well documented as the acts of subsequent Emperors. History also shows that such statesmen as we are supposed to have found only achieved such status late in life after careers of constant ruthlessness of the sort we are supposed to regret; just think of Henry Kissinger.
Given the difficulties of remaining pure and high-minded in the face of the daily struggle to keep the ship of state afloat -- or, more often, to stop its passengers throwing each other overboard -- it is a nice point whether those of a religious turn of mind are better equipped to resist temptation or are simply likely to behave like the rest of us.
The famous case of the Borgia Popes is not promising. It shows that theocratic administrations might, like secular entities, have to choose between high-minded naiveté and the kind of Machiavellian ruthlessness which gives deities a bad name if it is pursued, ostensibly with their blessing.
On that basis, President Wahid of Indonesia was doomed from the start. He was elevated to the Presidency of Indonesia in a party deal on the basis that he was an upright man of deep religious principles. So he might have been and so he still might be but he has turned out to be an appalling administrator. I do not say the second is causally linked to the first; they may be purely contingent; but what is of interest is the reason why he was thought to be a fit ruler for one of the largest and most difficult states on earth.For all our nostalgia for statesmen and our pieties about the decline in standards in public life we are already looking back to the golden age of Tito, Suhato and perhaps even Khruschev. In countries with a high propensity for fissiparousness, dictatorship of the ruthless sort may be no bad thing.
Unusually, Africa offers a counter argument. There has been a slow but noticeable democratisation and falling off of ruthlessness in West Africa. Parliamentary elections have just been successfully completed in Senegal; Gerry Rawlings, in spite of a good deal of constitutional bluster, did step down in Ghana; and an attempt to subvert a democratic election in the Ivory Coast was faced down by a brief and bloodless popular rising. There are signs that the West African economies are bucking the continental trend, whereas those places such as Kenya, where dictatorship is endemic, are continuing to slide. Last week's decision of his Party to allow President Chiluba of Zambia to re-write the Constitution so that he can stand for a third term was a bad sign. One can only hope that the honourable faction of his Party that voted against him can find a winning Presidential Candidate.
The two sets of cases, however, are reinforcing rather than contradictory and refer back to my opening remarks.
It is as well to be clear about what politicians do and why. What they do is the dirty work and they do it because we will not do it for ourselves. They are our ethereal scavengers, brokers and builders. Better, then, that they undertake this difficult work on the basis of democratic consent but if it cannot be had then better they do it than it is not done. Where sound administration is lacking the least fortunate and the least talented will always fall victim to the greater competence or wealth of their neighbours.
For all the evils of dictatorship, the cruelty, ruthlessness, Swiss bank accounts and systematic plundering of the public finances, the dictators will be forgiven if they deliver a degree of stability, economic growth and absence of communal violence.
We must be careful in this context not to glorify the democratic system. It flourishes under very special circumstances which are not enjoyed by most countries precisely because we deny them the opportunity. The very warriors of the ballot box oppose development assistance to the poorest and wish to impose free trade conditions that will cripple them further, delaying forever longer the day of the election.
On the day when the Indonesian Parliament voted for a second time in favour of impeachment proceedings against President Wahid, there were scuffles outside the Philippines Parliament. On the face of it there is a much stronger case against former President Estrada than against President Wahid but neither is egregious. On that day, too, talks between the Zapatistas and President Fox of Mexico broke down. Surely this points to a special set of problems faced by large intermediate economies. They each have to struggle to find an appropriate balance of central control and local autonomy, often in circumstances of racial tension generated partly by an unacceptable level of economic inequality. In these circumstances, would you prefer the wily politician or the statesman?
On the day when these events took place I was paying a brief visit to Hong Kong, not visited by me since it became part of China. Here I was on the spectacularly prosperous edge of a multi-racial, massive intermediate economy with a severe internal migration problem and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike the Philippines, Indonesia and Mexico, however, China has the potential to export its woes, to quiet internal discontent by generating an international crisis. For this reason, if for no other, President Bush should be as careful with China as he no doubt will be with the other three.
