Many times, I have seen arguments stating that only a one-party state can achieve the economic success of Singapore. They all cite that a stable environment is needed for policies to show an effect. This is only partly true and I will attempt to explain why.
While I do not disagree that too much dissension will stifle progress, it is the degree of oppression that I call into question. Advocates of the one-party state have often brought up examples of many Asian democracies that are frequently too mired in political wrangles to achieve any progress. However, I would like to point out that we live in a world where change is a constant. It has been so even before humans set foot on Earth and will continue to be so at an increasing pace now that the world has become "smaller".
In a one-party state, the danger lies in not reacting fast enough to the changes afoot, especially for a small, open economy like Singapore. Even when change is embraced, it is not handled in an even manner. People in power, especially if they have been entrenched in their positions for a long time, will ensure that any new measures taken do not adversely affect their circumstances. This leads to an uneven playing field and over time, the gaps in society will become so exacerbated as to become insurmountable rifts.
For every country cited where democracy has failed, there is one where a one-party state is not exactly an epitome of success. I do not know if Singaporeans have seen the danger but I am sure they must have felt it, especially in recent years. The rise of elitism is a worrying sign. In years back, many scholars were selected from the common people, people whose parents are certainly not considered elites or relatively well-off. But now increasingly, the scholars are drawn from a pool of people with well-to-do families. I have nothing against their achievements but a one-party state that draws it top civil servants from these scholars will tend to create a self-preserving cycle due to the non-uniform implementation of policies to accommodate the changes happening around the world.
Would a democracy have worked? I do not know but it will at least promote the free exchange of ideas and act as a deterrent against corruption. Remember that Taiwan's former president Chen was brought to justice because of their democracy. If Taiwan was a one-party state, many more Chens would still be living a good life. I do not know about Singapore as it is no democracy but based on what I have seen and experienced, I can bet that abuses of power are a dime a dozen. The only question is the extent of those abuses and as the party becomes more entrenched, it can only become bigger and never smaller because if you are not within the circle of trust, you are outside it. And we all know how bad it feels if you once belonged in the circle but have now been cast out.
While I do not disagree that too much dissension will stifle progress, it is the degree of oppression that I call into question. Advocates of the one-party state have often brought up examples of many Asian democracies that are frequently too mired in political wrangles to achieve any progress. However, I would like to point out that we live in a world where change is a constant. It has been so even before humans set foot on Earth and will continue to be so at an increasing pace now that the world has become "smaller".
In a one-party state, the danger lies in not reacting fast enough to the changes afoot, especially for a small, open economy like Singapore. Even when change is embraced, it is not handled in an even manner. People in power, especially if they have been entrenched in their positions for a long time, will ensure that any new measures taken do not adversely affect their circumstances. This leads to an uneven playing field and over time, the gaps in society will become so exacerbated as to become insurmountable rifts.
For every country cited where democracy has failed, there is one where a one-party state is not exactly an epitome of success. I do not know if Singaporeans have seen the danger but I am sure they must have felt it, especially in recent years. The rise of elitism is a worrying sign. In years back, many scholars were selected from the common people, people whose parents are certainly not considered elites or relatively well-off. But now increasingly, the scholars are drawn from a pool of people with well-to-do families. I have nothing against their achievements but a one-party state that draws it top civil servants from these scholars will tend to create a self-preserving cycle due to the non-uniform implementation of policies to accommodate the changes happening around the world.
Would a democracy have worked? I do not know but it will at least promote the free exchange of ideas and act as a deterrent against corruption. Remember that Taiwan's former president Chen was brought to justice because of their democracy. If Taiwan was a one-party state, many more Chens would still be living a good life. I do not know about Singapore as it is no democracy but based on what I have seen and experienced, I can bet that abuses of power are a dime a dozen. The only question is the extent of those abuses and as the party becomes more entrenched, it can only become bigger and never smaller because if you are not within the circle of trust, you are outside it. And we all know how bad it feels if you once belonged in the circle but have now been cast out.
