Experience shows that Big Man rule does not always lead to development

My column on Rwanda’s accelerated development, while limiting fundamental freedoms, elicited quite a number of responses suggesting that this is exactly what Kenya needs at this time.

Some ardent supporters of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto even said that the co-principals have been too kind so far and should eliminate dissent altogether.

How quickly memories fade. Kenya is not that far from the typical Big Man rule of Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi, where independent voices, let alone dissenting ones, were crushed mercilessly. And we did not get development, save for some favoured regions, falling way behind Malaysia, South Korea and Singapore which had been our equals on development at independence.

What we got instead was massive corruption, increased tribalism and marginalisation for many parts of Kenya, all coupled with massacres, torture and assassinations.

But as fate would have it, I was in Cambodia last week, another country with Big Man rule, and which, like Rwanda, survived genocide in the 1970s.

Cambodia is a stunningly beautiful country, full of vibrant energy. The capital, Phnom Penh, is an organised madhouse of motorcycles — I have never seen so many motorcycles in my life.

While it is one of the poorer East Asian countries, its sense of spirit and enterprise is inescapable.

Cambodia has a dark history. For three years, eight months and 20 days, as I was constantly reminded, it was ruled by a maniac called Pol Pot. When he took power in 1975, the population was about 7 million people.

MONEY WAS ABOLISHED

When he left, it was down to 5 million with an estimated 2 million people killed in a genocidal terror.

During his Big Man rule, Pol Pot abolished schools, and emptied the cities and towns, decreeing that everyone must live on farms.

Money was abolished and traders and the educated were the first to be executed. Private property was abolished and everyone was suited in uniform black attire, sleeping and working communally. Thousands died from starvation.

Pol Pot was eventually driven out of Phnom Penh by the Vietnamese army who installed a puppet regime, as a raging civil war broke out.

The current leader, Prime Minister Hun Sen, came back to Cambodia with the Vietnamese conquerors, where he had lived after fleeing his middle-ranking officer position in Pol Pot’s army. He became Prime Minister in 1985 and has been in power since, retaining power in disputed elections in July 2013 that led to huge protests in the capital.

In his 28 years of power, Hun Sen has been accused of massive corruption, which he denies, and I was shown many properties that are allegedly owned by him and his family. He has also presided over the sale of land to private companies, causing displacement of poor people.

CREDIBILITY DEFICIT

Importantly, his family and relatives dominate the higher levels of government including in the military where his son, Hun Manet, is a general and in charge of the Prime Minister’s bodyguards.

The Judiciary suffers a huge credibility deficit, and the elections’ body is under the direct control of the Ministry of the Interior.

There is no doubt that Cambodia has experienced significant economic growth in the last years, even as the gap between the rich and the poor has expanded exponentially.

The cloud of corruption, with the country rated as 160th out of 177 in Transparency International’s most recent global index, hinders economic growth, even as fundamental freedoms are heavily restricted.

An unlawful blanket ban on gatherings of more than 10 people was imposed earlier this year.

It can be tempting to wish for a benevolent Big Man who can order development fast. But Africa’s history — and Cambodia’s, too — shows the massive negative impacts of Big Man rule. It is better, in principle, to have a good leader for a short time — and with challenges and dissent allowed — than take the risk of a bad leader forever.

[email protected]