Democracy in Singapore: How Is One-Party Rule Possible?

[Char_Azn]

Came across this interesting article

Americans often describe Singapore as a "dictatorship." I've occasionally done so myself. After further study, though, I've concluded that this view is simply wrong. Singapore is a democracy in practice as well as theory. Yes, the ruling People's Action Party has 82 out of 84 seats, and has held the reins of power for the country's entire history. But Singapore follows the rules of British parliamentary politics. Opposition is legal. It just doesn't win.

Like most Americans, my natural reaction to these facts is to assume massive corruption. No party can win 82 out of 84 seats honestly, can it? But when you delve deeper, you'll find almost no supporting evidence for these suspicions. Singapore gets stellar scores on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. Even more amazingly, the World Bank's Governance Matters index gives Singapore near-perfect scores in every area except "Voice and Accountability." Neutral observers basically say that Singaporean democracy is honest but unresponsive.

Learning these facts left me even more puzzled than I started. Singapore seems to be sui generis; where else on earth does honest democracy lead to total domination by a single party? After extensive reflection, though, it hit me: Instead of comparing Singapore to other democratic countries, I should compare it to other democratic cities. There are many major cities in the United States where one party wins supermajorities year after year. Democratic mayors have continuously ruled in San Francisco longer than Singapore has been an independent country! And while corruption plays a role in American urban politics - think of the notorious Daley machine - corruption is hardly necessary for one-party rule.

Why is it easier to have a one-party city than a one-party country? There are probably a lot of reasons, but the most obvious is that smaller polities (measured in terms of both population and land area) are less diverse. 3 million people squeezed into a few square miles might converge on a single worldview. 300 million people spanning a continent almost certainly won't.

Notice, moreover, that size matters on both the demand and supply sides of politics. On the demand side, smaller polities have less voter disagreement about the kind of politicians they want; on the supply side, smaller polities have less diverse candidates to offer. If Singapore had a hundred times as many people as it does, it would be a lot more likely to contain a Ross Perot ready to spend his fortune to challenge the status quo.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/democracy_in_si.html

 

[tualingong]

Selective reporting, why don't you say 60% of votes can give you 82 seats.

While 40% of the oppositions votes can only achieve 4 seats?

My kar chng is also called democracy!!!

 

[MBSSLOTS]

there is some truth in the article.

 

[Raiders]

Selective reporting, why don't you say 60% of votes can give you 82 seats.

While 40% of the oppositions votes can only achieve 4 seats?

My kar chng is also called democracy!!!

First time I see you talk sense. Remember to remind me to up you tomorrow night.

 

[Clone]

Good one Char_Siew. You're like a different person since your Brazil trip woh.

It's true SF was governed by the Democrats for 50 years uninterrupted. Anyone wanna take a shot at this one?

 

[Kinana]

Excellent article with deep insight.
A star.

 

[johnny333]

Isn't Spore unique

The PAP has had plenty of oppurtonity to fine tune gerrymandering & the GRC :p

 

[Kinana]

Isn't Spore unique

The PAP has had plenty of oppurtonity to fine tune gerrymandering & the GRC :p

I think you are truely ignorant and naive. Redrawing of electoral lines happen in all democracies, not just in Singapore.

 

[bic_cherry]

Came across this interesting article
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/democracy_in_si.html

I think it isn't not so much HOW MANY POLITICAL PARTIES ARE REPRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT.
But rather how such a state of affairs came about:...

[Original thread source(A1): 1 Party system have made a mess out of Singapore?]
If Singapore is in a mess, why are we one of the best cities in the world ah? Weird!

It is not so much the one party system per se that has messed up Singapore BUT how this sad situation was arrived at in the first place:

E.g.:
Fixing the opposition using supersized GRC system of elections, civil service(HDB)/ PA as the political agent representing PAP political interest, the AGC taking sides and rooting for PAP:

Fixing the opposition according to PM Lee:

fixing opposition parties; actually just creating a strait jacket, monolithic authoritarian political state, where citizens are just slaves serving the political elite......

(YouTube; LHL: "fix the opposition")

Supersized GRCs (i.e. moved goal posts) benefiting larger parties like PAP to scare away weak opposition competition thus allowing more PAP coat-tail MPs to enter parliament:

'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,' Mr Goh Chok Tong, June 2006 ['GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM'].

[Pict= [URL=http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2012/04/disassembling-grc-benefits-pap-1/]Disassembling GRC system benefits PAP (Part 1 of 3)[/URL]]

The AGC rooting for the incumbent PAP AGAINST constitutional rules defining/ directing its impartiality:

(Pict source)(alt source)

Civil service (HDB) being manhandled by PA to turn every gahmen national upgrading policy into a political weapon (reward for votes policy (pork barrel politics basically)):

https://jacob69.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/hdb-as-a-political-weapon/