Some years back, just before the Asian crisis hit, Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew told a Manila audience that, well, yes, democracy was an alright thing, but one shouldn't overdo it - implying, of course, that the Philippines had, to the detriment of the country's economy. Then-Philippines president Fidel Ramos was furious, or at least so he said, and issued a strong rebuke. But it seems that he took the Singapore elder statesman's advice to heart nonetheless. It would explain why, this past January, he helped organize the overthrow of Philippines President Joseph Estrada by blatantly unconstitutional, undemocratic means.

After four years of incessant political turmoil brought on by economic and social dislocation in Southeast Asia, Lee's proposition that only carefully managed rather than freewheeling democracy is feasible in the region and can ensure the combination of economic freedom and political stability necessary to foster economic progress is worth another look.

The record of the past quarter century would certainly seem to favor Lee's "democracy, yes, but in manageable doses" view. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries that have experienced little or no democracy from 1975 to date - Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam - are also the ones with the lowest per capita incomes. Those that have practiced managed and restricted democracy throughout - Malaysia and Singapore - are the richest. Income levels of those that for at least part of the past 25 years have had liberal ("excessive" in Lee's terms) democratic systems - the Philippines (1987-2001) and Thailand (1988-1991; 1992-2001) - fall somewhere in between, though the income distance between them and Malaysia is far smaller than the one between them and Myanmar or Vietnam.

Interestingly, there is a perfect match between the "LKY [Lee Kuan Yew] rank" of ASEAN members (by his desirable degree of democracy criterion) and their relative rank on the "global [economic] competitiveness" scale prepared annually by the World Economic Forum/Harvard University Business School. The Global Competitiveness Report 2000, in the ASEAN group, ranks Singapore first, Vietnam dead last (Cambodia and Myanmar do not figure in the index), and Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia in between, in that order.

So, LKY surely has a point - at any rate in terms of the historical record of a generation. What's not so clear is its forward-looking, predictive value regarding future performance.

That command economies controlled by totalitarian regimes don't work is no longer much of an issue except in places such as North Korea or Cuba. To the extent that Vietnam still adheres to elements of it, it will remain mired in poverty. That liberal democratic forms grafted onto largely unreformed oligarchical social structures tend to encounter major difficulties, including chaotic disruption of political and social stability, is amply proved by the Philippines and Thai experiences. That guided democracy intent on establishing reliable legal and law enforcement norms is favorable to market economy development is in little doubt.

But what concerns us is the future of such systems as Singapore's and their applicability to larger nation states. LKY himself has begun to criticize the complacency of the denizens of the nanny state he created. Sustainable entrepreneurial activity and initiative require more political elbow room than Singapore or Malaysia provide. They require as well the institutionalization of social and political factions in the form of distinctive political parties negotiating their divergent interests through vigorously contested elections and a far higher degree of freedom of information (press freedom) than Singapore or Malaysia are prepared to countenance.

Therein lies the challenge for Southeast Asia: Singapore and Malaysia must liberalize Thailand or Philippines style much as the latter must firmly commit to instituting and equitably enforcing the rule of law. All four have a long way to go and Vietnam has a far longer road to travel. In terms of liberal democracy ranking, Thailand at present stands first in ASEAN, followed by the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia at equal rank, and then the rest. For the future, this should bode well for Thailand in its relative potential for economic advancement. Malaysia's ability to liberalize without serious disruption is in most serious doubt.