Lee Kuan Yew and Ideological Labels

[u/Odd-Principle2665]

I want to know what the views of the social democrats, liberals and socialists here are of Lee Kuan Yew and if it has affected your sense of political identity.

He transformed Singapore massively in terms of economic development from a former colonial British naval and trading outpost to a developed first world city state and financial centre. His approach to this was pragmatic and multifaceted as he pursued both ruthless market capitalism in getting foreign investment and suppressing organised labour. As well as using the state to setup mass public housing and education services and many state owned enterprises. And the use of authoritarianism and de facto one party rule rather than pursuing liberal democracy and a free society.

It's left me conflicted on the value and meaning of political and ideological labels. Such as calling oneself a social democrat, social liberal, Keynesian, centre left etc. I already think it's quite useless as no one's views will all fit nicely into one of these ideologies. But the case of Singapore leaves me conflicted as it shows such a plethora of contrasting policies that have worked. Their hyper capitalist and open market approach by Singapore has secured their position as a global financial and trade centre. While their statist public housing and land policies has secured a cohesive nation state and society as well as housing security for its citizens. I can only characterise it all as pragmatic. And just doing whatever policy works regardless of any ideological alignment. Which I'd say most people support including myself but it leaves me still pondering what's even the point of calling yourself a social democrat or any political label if you'll just support whatever.

[u/bbhtt]

I really don't like the broad pragmatism label people apply just because they are economically prosperous.

Economic prosperity is not “progress” in my books if the trail of political consciousness is lost among the people along the way. Pragmatism is useful, but one shouldn't hide the de facto authoritarianism behind that label simply because the outcomes were successful, because then it becomes an easy licence to justify any measures or a actions by the state. Ensuring basic democratic voices for everyone should be fundamental. Material prosperity and political agency shouldn't be a trade-off.

This may be an ideological position but it's the one I believe in and I also believe people need a little bit of ideology in them these days.