News

"Deep in the human heart lies the longing for a dictator," The Globe's Marcus Gee wrote Saturday in his essay Those stumbling strongmen

"Someone to straighten out the mess the politicians have made. Someone to round up the chisellers and the thieves. Someone to end all the bickering and cut through the red tape. A Caesar. A good czar. A man on horseback.

"Even in modern, democratic societies, there is a grudging admiration for the efficiency of the autocrat. Mussolini made the trains run on time, didn't he? And Hitler got Germans working again.

"They may have been monsters, we tell ourselves, but by golly they got things done . . .

"But take a look at the record, and the claims made for the efficiency of autocrats quickly fall apart. Most of them are terrible bumblers."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative thesis, so we're pleased that Mr. Gee was online today to answer your questions on his essay and on the issues it raises.

Your questions and Mr. Gee's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

In addition to his responsibilities covering the Asia-Pacific region, Mr. Gee also writes a weekly column on international affairs for The Globe.

Born in Toronto, he graduated from the University of British Columbia in 1979 with a degree in modern European history, then worked as a reporter for The Province, Vancouver's morning newspaper.

He spent four years in Asia in the early 1980s, the first three in Hong Kong as an editor, writer and correspondent for Asiaweek magazine, the last as a reporter for United Press International in Manila and Sydney.

After returning to Canada, he worked as a foreign affairs writer at Maclean's magazine and as senior editor at the Financial Times of Canada.

He joined the Globe in 1991 as an editorial writer.

Mr. Gee has won two National Newspaper Awards for his commentary. In 2002, Amnesty International gave him its annual John Humphrey award for human rights reporting.

Among the events he has covered are the war in Kosovo, the violence in East Timor and the turmoil surrounding the overthrow of Indonesian President Suharto.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Sasha Nagy, globeandmail.com writes: Marcus: Thanks for taking reader questions. Interesting essay, it made me question my own perceptions of democracy. If asked, I would unquestionably state my preference for democratic institutions over the alternative. Yet, in times of crisis, I am probably like many who have perhaps too readily given a government or a leader carte blanche to deal with the problem, trusting that they will do the right thing. As Trudeau did in invoking the War Measures Act, or Bush in authoring the Patriot Act, sometimes our leaders act a lot like autocrats. What do you think that says about us?

Marcus Gee: Nice to get some response. I look forward to the debate.

At least in a democracy we can pass judgment on things like the War Measures Act and the Patriot Act at the polling booth. I'd also argue that, as dubious as they may be, those measure at least had to pass the hurdle of legislatures and independent courts. That would not happen in, say, Pakistan.

Wei-Lim Chan from Richmond, B.C. writes: I don't agree with Marcus Gee's argument that democracy is more efficient than dictatorship or the opposing counter argument dictatorship makes the trains run on time. In his argument he gives example of badly run dictatorships (while he does note the exceptions like Singapore and Chile). But he does not dwell into what makes states like Singapore and Pinochet's Chile work. Both Singapore and Chile are efficient because they have a system where the rule of law is followed and very clean government. Just good government plain and simple. Putin's Russia and China do not fit this description. The argument Mr. Gee should be making does democracy help in good governance? In what ways does it hinder it? Or is it really irrelevant. You can have bad dictatorships as well as bad democracies. Another problem with Mr. Gee's argument is he does not define democracy in the beginning of his argument. Does it mean democracy or liberal democracy? I can't really tell from his article. If I take it to mean liberal democracy then we have a problem. Liberal democracy comes with a lof of stuff that make it work: independent judicial systems, clean bureaucracies, free press, laws protecting individual rights etc. Ideally what the West wants the whole world to have is liberal democracy. But when voters in West Bank elect Hamas or the Germans choose Hitler during the 1930s, we say the process is flawed. Mr. Gee should spend less time harping about democracy and more time focusing on 'liberalism' or define what exactly we mean by democracy?

Marcus Gee: Yes, some dictatorships are worse than others. My argument was that, while some may be reasonably effective at governing -- Singapore, for example -- most are rather inept in practice. Only very rarely do we find a strongman like Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew who can resist the corrupting influences that come with supreme power. There are precious few like him. And of course, even the rare, well-run dictatorships are often quite oppressive. Singapore's government has discouraged the rise of a vigoous opposition and independent press, As for Augusto Pinochet, rightly credited with Chile's economic miracle, no one should forget the terrible crimes his regime committed when it took power -- torture, illegal executions, and on and on.

Paul McCarthy from Jakarta Indonesia writes: Marcus, Greetings from Jakarta. Liked your opinion piece and, inherently, I agree, though it's easy to lose sight of the democratic forest due to the poor governance trees in a place like Indonesia. Nine years after the downfall of one of the 20th centuries classic dictators, economic and social conditions aren't much improved and corruption remains rife, despite the pledges of an ostenisbly democratic government. We may now have achieved procedural democracy here - at least in the form of (relatively) free, fair - and frequent - elections, but Indonesian democracy is a far cry from what we have in the West. Moreover, as in Russia, much of the rank and file here long for the 'good old days' when prices were stable and jobs relatively plentiful, even if they don't miss Suharto himself. I question whether it is reasonable to expect real participatory democracy can evolve in the absence of

• a) a sizeable middle class and some degree of economic equity;
• b) attaining standards of basic education for all to the point where there is sufficiently widespread civic awareness of both the rights and responsibilities of democracy; and,
• c) a government/civil service that takes the role of building sustainable democratic institutions (judicial system, civilian control over the military, executive/legislative checks and balances, etc) seriously?

If that's the case, then the vast majority of countries seem destined to muddle along with dictatorships or the constant threat thereof. Then again, in Singapore, as you point out, they seem to be doing just fine. Your views? All the best - and welcome back to Jakarta any time.

Marcus Gee: Greetings, Paul. I'd reply in a single word: India. Still very poor. Still has generally low levels of education and literacy. Only recentlly has there been much of a middle class. And yet its democracy survives. Yes, it's a deeply flawed democracy, ridden by corruption and caste politics and so on, but I'd argue that, with all its troubles, India is not likely to experience a near-catastrophic regime collapse like Indonesia did. That's because democracy supplies a safety valve for discontents, preventing them from boiling over. That's one thing that I think people overlook about China, which looks relatively stable from the outside but is actually a seething cauldron in many ways -- and entirely lacking the safety valves that India has.

Atlantic Geezer from Canada writes: When democracy works there is no better system, it stabilizes society by including all sectors. When democracy works there are methods and approachs that allow for long term projects. Currenty it appears that North American democracy only cares about re-election, gone are the days where an 'Apollo' or a 'Universal Health Care' can be envisioned and supported regardless of politics. A dictorship works when the leader has sanity and vision like Octavian or Charlemagne but more often than not we end up with Idi Amin.

Marcus Gee: I don't know if there was ever a time when democratic governments didn't worry about re-election. The desire to get back in office inevitably leads to a certain amount of pandering. Consider the Harper government's GST cut, which runs against conservative economic principles but looked to the Tories like a vote getter. You would think that, with no requirement to get re-elected, authoritarian governments would pander less and take the tough decisions their countries need to move ahead. In fact, dictators and strongmen are almost always more afraid of the people than democratic politicians, for the obvious reason that they have more to lose from their anger. Mr. Harper may lose his job, but China's leaders could lose their freedom or even their lives if things go wrong. So strongmen pander, too. Beijing, for example, is keeping China's currency artificially low, causing gross distortion to the Chinese economy, because it fears what might happen if growth slows and mass unemployment breaks out.

Negy H from Toronto writes: There was a report a few days ago that China said that Kenya is a good example that democracy is not always good for every country. There're also some arguments that whatever the social system is, democracy or dictatorship, if the people in a country lives betters and better than before, then there's no need to change the social system. A good example is China again. Chinese have never been this rich than they were in their thousands of years of history. And China has never been so strong and developed so fast compared to what it had been in the past 200 hundreds of years. Why must we push them to be democracy? Is it too ricky to not only China, but the whole world to change the social structure in China? Imagine what is happening in Kenya, in Afghan, in Iraq. What do you think?

Marcus Gee: Ethnic or tribal fighting like we've seen in Kenya doesn't just happen in democracies. We saw it in many African countries while they were still under authoritarian rule. At best, dictators tend to keep the lid on (without easing) ethnic tensions. Witness Yugoslavia, which fell apart after Tito's enforced and artificial brotherhood dissolved.

And China has indeed grown quickly under authoritarian rule. Quite a few countries -- South Korea, Taiwan -- have. But I'd argue that, as developing countries grow, goernance becomes much more complex, and that democracy is better at managing that complexity. Both the United States and Britian managed an industrial revolution under liberal democracy.

Anne Johnston from Red Deer AB writes: I prefer to stick with democracy, however it does have it's downside,as evidenced here in Alberta. We have had one party in for too long. Democracy works if we change our governments every 12 years at the most, and are very careful about who we elect. In North America we tend to vote for our favorite party and not on the track record. People need to be more informed about how they are voting. A minority government is the best because they have to try harder.

Marcus Gee: So change it. There's nothing to stop Albertans throwing out the Tories if they think they're doing a bad job, is there?

Asif Hossain from Toronto writes: To Mr. Gee: I find it strange that you comment on dictatorships while managing to shy away from the billions in arms and protection that democratic states give to undemocratic ones. The United States keeps human rights violating regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan in power at the expense of democratic movements that have long died a brutal death giving way to terrorism. Same line has played out in Pakistan for the last three decades with the U.S. hedging their bets on all sides of violence. You shamelessly write of the lofty goal of 'exporting democracy to Iraq' - which is the most disingenous thing anyone could write - but mention nothing of the decades of power in the hands of U.S. sponsored dictators, including Saddam Hussein when convenient, who have murdered and looted their own public with full western backing. Who exactly thinks that authoritarian rule is a good idea - the apologists for the dictators or our own political leaders who keep undemocratic and murderous regimes in power for short term gains? Why do you fail to criticize western involvement - particularly American - in suppressing democracy in these countries? Does your so-called 'provocative' essay not lend space for self-criticism?

Marcus Gee: I agree that that the West has backed far too many dictators over the years. In the Cold War, the United States tended to prop up dictators of the right to forestall revolutions of the left. There is less justification now, after the collapse of global communism. The argument now is that, at least in the Arab and larger Islamic world, Washington has to back strongmen like Musharraf of Pakistan or Mubarak of Egypt because the alternative is Islamic revolution. There is a danger of that being true, of course, and it would be naive to pretend otherwise. But I tend to think that the oppression and stagnation that comes with such regimes does more to fuel militancy than to suppress it. Washington showed signs of coming to this realization after 9/11, but has not followed through.

Major Pain from Halifax writes: I didn't actually find the article very controversial in its content. What I did find curious was that Mr. Gee somehow finds the gumption to lump authoritarian power in Russia in with the lot of dictators while ignoring the much closer example of unchecked power over the past 7 years down south, which we are seeing play out to a conclusion that is exactly what he attributes to the dictatorships of the world. Would Mr. Gee care to comment?

Marcus Gee: Whatever you may think of George W. Bush, his power is certainly not unchecked. The United States, for all its faults, has a thorough system of checks and balances, from the courts to the press to the Congress. Mr. Bush is under heavy scrutiny and criticism from multiple sources whenever he oversteps (secret wiretaps etc.). That's the difference between democracy and dictatorship.

Sasha Nagy: Marcus, thanks for your time today. In closing, how do you see nations like Afghanistan and Iraq embracing democracy, or rather it becoming more entrenched, when and if the Western military moves out?

Marcus Gee: I enjoyed it.

I think that the huge, ethusiastic turnouts we've seen in elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq -- despite the obvious perils of casting a ballot under terrorist threat -- leaves little doubt that people in those countries want democracy. The idea that democracy is alien to certain cultures (Arab culture, for example) is mistaken, and patronizing to boot. Whether those countries would be able to sustain democratic government under the enormous pressures they face -- ethnic division, terrorism, hostile outside powers -- is hard to say. I'd argue that, for the time being, Western countries have to be there to help them put down democratic roots.