- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=1]SINGAPORE'S DEMOCRACY RANKING IN 2014 IMPROVES AS MORE SINGAPOREANS PROTEST[/h]
Post date:
22 Jan 2015 - 12:01pm
Singapore moved up five spots in The Economist's Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index in 2014 but this is primarily because of how Singaporeans have become so angered by the government that Singapore has seen its largest protests in 2014 since independence from the British.
Singapore moved up five spots, from 80th to 75th position, to be ranked last as a "flawed democracy". Last year, Singapore was ranked as a "hybrid regime".
According to The Economist, hybrid regimes have substantial irregularities in their elections that often prevent them from being free and fair. Also, government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common. In addition, "Corruption tends to be widespread and the rule of law is weak. Civil society is weak. Typically there is harassment of and pressure on journalists, and the judiciary is not independent."
Singapore was previously ranked as a hybrid regime.
A flawed democracy is considered to be one where countries "have free and fair elections" and where "basic civil liberties will be respected". "However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation."
According to The Economist, Singapore has been upgraded to being a "flawed democracy".
Most Singaporeans would disagree with this upgrade as they would see Singapore as still exhibiting the characteristics of a hybrid regime.
Indeed, a look at the breakdown of the ranking show this to be true.
There are five components to the index, of which there was only a clear jump in one component for Singapore.
Only in the component of "political participation" did Singapore's score jumped from 3.89 to 5.00.
According to The Economist, "protests have also become more prominent in countries ranging from supposedly apathetic Singapore through to more active democracies, such as India and Taiwan.
"In Singapore, this shift has been enough to lift the country from the status of “hybrid regime” to “flawed democracy”.
However, The Economist cautioned that "Movements championing direct action are a mixed blessing; while they can engage young people and invigorate the political scene by forcing governing elites to pay more attention to popular concerns, they can also descend into unproductive disruption.
"If they fail, they can also leave disillusionment in their wake, undermining public confidence in democratic institutions."
Indeed, this warning by The Economist is rooted in how Singapore's score for the component of political participation has also fallen, which means that there is no lesser societal consensus among Singaporeans with the government's policies and there is a growing perception that Singapore is being ruled by an overpowering leader who does not bother with parliament and elections.
Indeed, it is clear that The Economist's warning for Singapore is rooted in its belief that in spite of the people's willingness to express their frustrations via their participation in protests, the Singapore government has also shown a similar willingness to clamp down on the people.
As such, The Economist fears that this will only create "disillusionment" and where "public confidence in democratic institutions" will undoubtedly decline.
Indeed, if The Economist were to also factor in the incidents where activists have also been banned from protesting and where protestors for several events have also been investigated by the police and some, deported, it can be seen that the Singapore government is swinging towards taking a more punitive stance towards suppressing free speech.
If so, Singapore's rise in the rankings into being a flawed democracy is only a short reprieve, where it will necessarily descend back into being one which is closer to be an authoritarian regime.
Post date:
22 Jan 2015 - 12:01pm
Singapore moved up five spots in The Economist's Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index in 2014 but this is primarily because of how Singaporeans have become so angered by the government that Singapore has seen its largest protests in 2014 since independence from the British.
Singapore moved up five spots, from 80th to 75th position, to be ranked last as a "flawed democracy". Last year, Singapore was ranked as a "hybrid regime".
According to The Economist, hybrid regimes have substantial irregularities in their elections that often prevent them from being free and fair. Also, government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common. In addition, "Corruption tends to be widespread and the rule of law is weak. Civil society is weak. Typically there is harassment of and pressure on journalists, and the judiciary is not independent."
Singapore was previously ranked as a hybrid regime.
A flawed democracy is considered to be one where countries "have free and fair elections" and where "basic civil liberties will be respected". "However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation."
According to The Economist, Singapore has been upgraded to being a "flawed democracy".
Most Singaporeans would disagree with this upgrade as they would see Singapore as still exhibiting the characteristics of a hybrid regime.
Indeed, a look at the breakdown of the ranking show this to be true.
There are five components to the index, of which there was only a clear jump in one component for Singapore.
Only in the component of "political participation" did Singapore's score jumped from 3.89 to 5.00.
According to The Economist, "protests have also become more prominent in countries ranging from supposedly apathetic Singapore through to more active democracies, such as India and Taiwan.
"In Singapore, this shift has been enough to lift the country from the status of “hybrid regime” to “flawed democracy”.
However, The Economist cautioned that "Movements championing direct action are a mixed blessing; while they can engage young people and invigorate the political scene by forcing governing elites to pay more attention to popular concerns, they can also descend into unproductive disruption.
"If they fail, they can also leave disillusionment in their wake, undermining public confidence in democratic institutions."
Indeed, this warning by The Economist is rooted in how Singapore's score for the component of political participation has also fallen, which means that there is no lesser societal consensus among Singaporeans with the government's policies and there is a growing perception that Singapore is being ruled by an overpowering leader who does not bother with parliament and elections.
Indeed, it is clear that The Economist's warning for Singapore is rooted in its belief that in spite of the people's willingness to express their frustrations via their participation in protests, the Singapore government has also shown a similar willingness to clamp down on the people.
As such, The Economist fears that this will only create "disillusionment" and where "public confidence in democratic institutions" will undoubtedly decline.
Indeed, if The Economist were to also factor in the incidents where activists have also been banned from protesting and where protestors for several events have also been investigated by the police and some, deported, it can be seen that the Singapore government is swinging towards taking a more punitive stance towards suppressing free speech.
If so, Singapore's rise in the rankings into being a flawed democracy is only a short reprieve, where it will necessarily descend back into being one which is closer to be an authoritarian regime.
