Before you and my Italian readers throw their hands up in horror at the thought of another dictator taking power in Italy, I don’t mean another Mussolini, more of a Lee Kuan Yew. ‘A Lee Kuan who?’, you might be asking yourselves.
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Kuan Yew, for those who are unaware, is a former prime minister of Singapore. Someone who has been labelled as a benevolent dictator. Even Mussolini, who came to a sticky end at the hands of his own people, was, and still is by some, regarded as a dictator of the benevolent genre. Some historians would argue that Mussolini did do some good for Italy, as indeed did his German partner in crime, one Adolf Hitler. Power, alas, appears to have gone to the heads of both of these late leaders, and as a consequence they committed many regrettable actions which left their countries in more of a mess than before they started to throw their dictatorial weight around.
Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, on the other hand, appears to have managed to keep the temptations of total power at bay to the extent that he has relinquished power. Yew is a shrewd politician and an intellectual with an impressive academic record. Under his leadership, whether it is considered dictatorial or not, Singapore grew from being a backward, unstable former colonial outpost into a stable First World Asian Tiger, according to Wikipedia. In other words, Yew took a floundering, corrupt country with potential, and turned it around.
Perhaps the same could happen in Italy, there are, after all, parallels between the two countries.
Italy and Singapore Parallels
One could say that modern Italy is something of a floundering, corrupt country with potential too. It could be argued that an Italian equivalent of Yew could potentially do great things for Italy. Can you see any other parallels between Singapore and Italy?
How about the fact that Italy was for quite a time teetering on the edge of communism, and still today there are those who think communism may be a panacea for Italy’s many ills. Similarly, Singapore risked sinking into communist totalitarianism too. Yew though, cleverly steered Singapore away from this damaging path. Fascism does not appear to have played a strong part in Yew’s transformation of Singapore.
Mussolini’s rule is Missed
In Italy some still look back longingly to the days of Mussolini’s rule, and wonder whether a strong-arm approach may put an end to Italy’s ills. Those who favour communist rule in Italy probably believe the same. Indeed, at the end of the day, both Italy’s fascists and communists share one common aim: which is the taming the unruly aspects of this eternally sunny, but chaotic, Mediterranean peninsular.
With its almost daily stories of mafia and corruption, one can understand why Italy has many proponents of both fascism and communism. However, as history has taught us, both of these ‘isms’ tend to generate more problems than they solve. This being the case, a form of strong leadership along the lines of that of Singapore’s wise Mr Yew might prove beneficial to Italy in the long term.
Article continues after the advertisement
No Bullshit Approach Required
Italy needs a no bullshit approach to its problems, and could do with sharp toothed institutions run by people of integrity. Only a virtual dictator would have the guts to set up and support such mechanisms, but the results may well be worthwhile.
Yes, Italy could do with a benevolent dictator like Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew to pull its slack socks up.
What Italy lacks though, is a Yew equivalent, even if there are one or two potential candidates, who have been mentioned on Blog from Italy before.
As I write this, a corruption scandal is continuing to shake a southern corner of Italy, and the reverberations of this scandal are reaching all the way to Italy’s capital, Rome. Yet another scandal is sure to follow.
What do you think? Would a form of benevolent dictator be good for Italy?
Sources:
Wikipedia: Lee Kuan Yew
La Repubblica – in Italian – Corruption scandal: Bari, inchieste su appalti e finanziamenti “Tedesco ai vertici del sodalizio criminale” - Bari, inquest into tenders and financing – “Head of Health Service, Tedesco, at the One of the Leaders of a Band of Criminals.
About Alex Roe
Italy Chronicles Feed
“In Italy some still look back longingly to the days of Mussolini’s rule, and wonder whether a strong-arm approach may put an end to Italy’s ills.”
…Many of my cousins in the South honestly do have this in their heads. Now, living here and seeing how Italian politics work, I reluctantly agree at times!
Hi Peter,
“Many of my cousins in the South honestly do have this in their heads.” – not a huge surprise as those of us who live here know that southern Italy has more ‘problems’ than most other parts of the Living Museum. For some of those in the south life there must be a real source of frustration.
I’ve met a few Mussolini fans, although, in truth, I have no idea how many there are in Italy, but I do not think the number is insignificant.
Interesting to here that you “reluctantly agree at times”!
All the best,
Alex
There IS NO benevolent dictator. This man is a liar and a psychopath.
http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/
What a dictator wants is staying in power for the sake of staying in power. He would put himself and his cronies above even million of lives.
Singapore is a FASCISM. Make no mistake about it.
As what Mussolini said about fascism: “Fascism is the convergence of governmental and corporation power”
Good idea
But only if you Italians attribute it properly (for once) to the original sources.
After all, what with your claims of having “invented” silk, risotto, pasta, Fibonacci series, double-entry
accounting and God knows what else, Italians have shown again and again what a bunch of
plagiarists you truly are.
Sir,
The reason why Italy NEITHER did develop into a Singapore nor did develop a LKY (or possibly, a Franco) was simply because the similarities between Italy and Singapore is as great as that between olives and lychees. Italy, given its history of invasions, domination by oligarchic cliques, and its relations to the world have coloured its history to an extent that it would be nigh impossible, yet alone unthinkable, that the disciplinarian approach and intrusive government that characterises modern Singapore could be possible.
Lee H (he was given the Anglo-Saxon name of “Harry” at birth) had the luck to begin with a clean slate. Italy did not. Anyone who takes time to read Lee’s books would immediately realise why, although both leaders could have gotten “the trains to run on time”, one ended up hanging like salami in a butcher’s shop at Piazza Loreto, while another is still alive (but not necessarily well) and retired at a ripe old age. Italy just didn’t face the prospect of total annihilation and existential fear which was at the back of many Singaporeans (especially ethnic Chinese) in the post-war era.
Well, I beg to disagree with you Renato on the similarities between Italy and Singapore – Italy has been invaded and Singapore was dominated by the British for a good few years too. Singapore was corrupt and Italy is corrupt.
Lee H is still alive because he was a benevolent dictator, Mussolini came to a sticky end because he was a ‘traditional’ dictator who cared more about himself than his country.
I disagree with this too:
Post war Italy was in a terrible mess and I’m certain Italians were afraid for their futures and remember communism was still in the air and Stalin was a pretty murderous type too.
In summary, I would still say that Italy needs a dictator – or rather, a very strong leader who cares for his or her country. Very, very few of Italy’s current leaders seem to care for much more than making themselves richer – by hook or by crook and by destroying Italy in the process.
Best,
Alex
Correction, sir. EVERYONE needs a dictator. The question is whether we can get a good-quality one.
As per your points:
1. Italy IS a country. It has had its own ideas and traditions passed down via history. As for Singapore? well, that is much harder. We do know from Malay sources that at one point in time, there was a small petty kingdom called Temasek, a one-time Siamese client-state, but by the time Raffles arrived on the scene, this kingdom was long since extinct. Hence, the scene was set for the British to create a totally new society, one based on maritime power and commerce.
So Singapore has more in common with the USA (or possibly, the now-defunct Venetian Republic) than it does with Italy, and trying to transplant a “miracolo singaporeano” in Italy is just going to fail, because the sociocultural structure which made Singapore a possibility, as you have mentioned, is absent in Italy.
2. You are half-right with the concept of Lee as being a “benevolent dictator”, but many others would differ on this case – especially those affected by the “draconian” measures enacted to keep people “out of trouble”. In fact, these days, some Singaporeans are lamenting that those measures are stifling indigenous creativity and innovation. Lee’s success owes far less to the man himself than it does to the economic, social and political forces that were prevalent in the Malay Archipelago during the era of decolonisation which were unique to that region. Interbellum Italy emerged during a period when economics was far more parochial than it is today; Singapore emerged at the onset of economic globalisation, and was well set out to take advantage of it – trade and aid from the West to fight communism; a vital stopping point for ships travelling from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific; a central position in Southeast Asia and Australasia (northern Indochina was completely autarkic) – Mussolini’s Italy had none of these to help bring in economic growth and relative prosperity.
Here’s a simple exercise: Mussolini; Kadar; Pinochet; Zhou; which of these was “the better man”? were the wholly successful because of their efforts, or was it because the environment they inherited granted the success they needed?
3. Postwar Italy faced trouble from within; unlike Malaysia or Indonesia, I don’t think that France, Greece, Austria or even Yugoslavia was ever interested in (re)occupying Italy and reducing the status of ethnic Italians to second-class citizens. Singapore, on the other hand, if Lee’s accounts are to be believed, was fighting tooth and nail against (re)colonisation. While in interbellum Italy the question was about the equitable distribution of industrial resources, for Singapore, the question was about the development of industrial strength to guarantee independence. The Italians could and will never tolerate a Lee Kuan Yew. That Mussolini is missed in the south yet reviled in the north already speaks volumes.
So it is not difficult to see why Italy emerged the way Singapore did: Italian society (and some supporters of the Asian way would gleefully mention the whole west at large) is just too fragmented internally: you cannot create a unified state with a single rule of law unless people come to trust you. And once you become the Bossman in Italy, betrayal and mistrust would have been prevalent. Lee was capable of creating Singapore because there was this pressure to perform and reform. As Gemmell has noted, “Liberty is only valued when it is threatened.” Mussolini’s main threat was secessionism and internal dissent; Singapore’s problem was that it had no natural resources of its own and was surrounded by hostile neighbours.
The only few nations I can think of which could parallel Singapore best in this light would have been the early modern USA, the kingdom of Qin from the Warring States Period of China, and early modern Prussia. Perhaps the United Provinces or even West Germany could be considered as a parallel to Singapore too. These were all small and weak states when they started, but whose leaders knew that they had to do all they can in order to survive in a world full of hostile powers, and thus had every incentive to modernise, outwit, outsmart and outplay the other people around them. Mussolini’s Italy was too engrossed in what can be best considered de facto civil war to really care about these things – old habits die hard! – and conditions at home were made worse with the war.
Dear Renato,
“So Singapore has more in common with the USA (or possibly, the now-defunct Venetian Republic) than it does with Italy, and trying to transplant a “miracolo singaporeano” in Italy is just going to fail, because the sociocultural structure which made Singapore a possibility, as you have mentioned, is absent in Italy.”
I agree – Italy is Italy – I do not envisage transplanting the “miracolo singaporeano” in Italy. What Italy needs is a strong leader, familiar with Italy, who can point this country in some discernible direction – instil a sense of nation pride and unity and draw upon all that is good, while at the same time, cracking down hard on the bad.
“You are half-right with the concept of Lee as being a “benevolent dictator””
The words “dictator” and “benevolent” never sit well together!
Some of Lee’s methods were undoubtedly questionable, but when a country is in a mess, a heavy had is needed – he did what he thought was necessary to point Singapore in the right direction. This, it appears, he achieved. Perfection is a utopian ideal, as we both know.
“Mussolini; Kadar; Pinochet; Zhou;”
I’d say the better man was Kadar. Again, not perfect, but despite questionable methods, he did do a lot of good for Hungary. Not sure about Zhou – which Zhou?
Mussolini and Pinochet we’re too brutal. Methods not just questionable, but erroneous. Pinochet was corrupt too. Kadar was not, for example. Zhou Enlai (?) was not corrupt either, it appears.
“That Mussolini is missed in the south yet reviled in the north already speaks volumes.” Er, Mussolini is not reviled in Italy’s north – he has plenty of supporters even now. Berlusconi, who is a northerner, appears to be a fan too.
“you cannot create a unified state with a single rule of law unless people come to trust you.” 100% agree, which is why I mentioned a strong leader. Strong leaders are dictatorial, to an extent anyway, not all, but to lead, you need to dictate.
“Mussolini’s Italy was too engrossed in what can be best considered de facto civil war to really care about these things – old habits die hard! – and conditions at home were made worse with the war.” True, and look what happened to Mussolini – his approach was wrong.
I remain unconvinced, but would modify my opinion on the basis of this discussion – Italy needs a very strong leader – who people trust, but, who is not afraid to use a heavy hand – fairly, but hard.
Italians would listen, I feel – Italy is a land where status counts, someone who could draw this nation together, exploit its many advantages, whilst cracking down on the negative aspects would go down in Italian history as the greatest leader has ever had. To date, modern Italy has not had any great leaders – not one.
Best,
Alex