Abstract:
Looking at both the Philippines and Singapore, one can easily spot the difference
between these two countries, highly disciplined and efficient Singapore and
freedom loving chaotic Philippines.
Chaos, however, does not come from under but from above, the recent years
have been continually wracked with political chaos mostly involving the President
of the Philippines, in this light it was criticized for not instituting enough discipline
needed to ensure political stability ... like Singapore had ...
But the Philippines had already a leader like Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew once
before in the person of Ferdinand Marcos, both had tried to follow the Asian
Development Model of using strong regimes to institute discipline and hence
usher in national development, but the question is what went wrong?
Both Marcos and Lee's rise to power was set in an era of crisis, because of this
situation the people became more willing to accept a leadership that imposes
discipline. Further more the colonization of both countries also meant that they
were more susceptible to such a kind of leadership, the elitist culture, patronage
system, as well as the lack of experience in governance all led to the easier
acceptance of an iron hand.
Using discipline in the form of curtailing civil liberties, both men were able to uplift
their respective countries. But for Marcos, it was only at the onset that this
national development was felt.
What then contributed to the Marcos' downfall? Marcos and Lee, given the
situation when they came into power as well as their style of leadership can both
be classified as charismatic leaders.
Charismatic leaders, however, had to constantly prove themselves, and this is
where Marcos had failed. He failed on two planks, first he ultimately lacked the
moral ascendancy to instill discipline and second he failed to sustain the
country's development. Lee on the other hand was able to succeed in both.
Then it is necessary to ask, how long then will their legacy last? Marcos being a
dictator without equal, failed in imparting his visions to his successor, Lee on the
other hand while seeming to be authoritarian also valued the spread of his vision
to his close associates, while it is not yet secured, this thesis projects that Lee
will be able to impart his vision to his successors.
Given all of these, it can then be isolated that the role of leadership in instilling
discipline towards national development is therefore to apply discipline to all, to
maintain national development and to impart that vision of discipline towards
national development to others.
