Singapore has a political system which allows competition, throws up good leaders who govern by example and has a mechanism for peaceful change. It is a democracy, MM Lee told about 600 guests at the Citibank Legacies of Leadership lecture here last night.

[skip]

'The West says you must have multi-party, then you are a democracy,' he said during a dialogue. 'You must have Party A in, Party B out. Party B in, Party C out. That will be good for the country. I don't think so. We will not have a stable environment.'

[skip]

[Singapore's] is a system which throws up good leaders for Singapore, he added, in answer to a question seeking his views on the Confucian ideal of a ruler. MM Lee said the Confucian concept of a good emperor or a good magistrate still holds as the leaders must set a good example for a country to flourish. 

-- Straits Times, 19 May 2006, Multi-party 'not a must
for democracy', by Peh Shing Huei

 
The first paragraph contains assertions that are highly contestable. The second is really a "straw man" argument (does the West say that?), and also begs the question, "How is it that other countries can still have a stable environment, with Party A, Party B and Party C alternating?"

The third comes very close to contradicting the first (So, is ours a Confucian system or a democracy?)

Rather than pick apart what he said, which may not be possible without the transcript, and not just the news report of it, I'd like to point out a critical weakness that runs through his argument: the failure to distinguish between the purpose of a state and that of a government. In this failure is a source of unhappiness among many Singaporeans.

Lee's discussion about political systems is really a discussion about the state. But when he talks about the objective of getting "a country to flourish", he is saying that the purpose of having a state is economic growth. Well, "flourish" can also mean cultural growth, but let's get real. We're talking about Lee Kuan Yew.

Once we start to think that the purpose of a state is economic growth, then we are halfway to the argument that the powers, institutions and processes of the state should serve the objective of economic growth.

This is a dangerous misunderstanding.

The purpose of a state is justice and security. Mutual security is why people band together in the first place, most obviously against external threats, but just as important, for security against internal bullies (justice). Look historically, and you'll see that a state is considered legitimate when it is able to provide these benefits. It is when a state fails to achieve these essentials, e.g. Somalia, apartheid South Africa (seen through the eyes of native Africans) or Serbia (seen through the eyes of Albanian Kosovars) that the state is no longer considered legitimate by its people.

Look historically again, and you'll see that a state generally has never had to actively provide for economic wellbeing. To the extent that domestic peace and a functioning justice system that can arbitrate commercial disputes and protect property rights provide a foundation for economic prosperity, yes, it has its indirect role to play, but a state does not lose legitimacy even if the economy stagnates. Look at Japan during the last decade. Look at Cuba under Fidel Castro.

Therefore, to think that the powers, institutions and processes of the state should serve the objective of economic growth is to misdirect the state.

Governments, on the other hand, are different things. Since the 1930s people have expected governments to deliver economic security -- better yet, economic growth -- as well as some compassionate redistribution. Citizens expect government policies to be directed to these ends, though exactly what the policies should be is naturally the stuff of much political debate.

This distinction between state and government is necessary to understand why Lee's argument is unconvincing. Per his formulation, when economic growth is cast as the purpose of a state, various distortions of state institutions and processes can be justified in support of that objective.

For example, exploitation of workers might deliver greater economic growth, at least in the short to medium term. Thus the argument for banning trade unions (infringing the right of free association) is made.

Likewise, contentious political debate, it may be argued, would slow down executive decision making, thus retarding economic growth. So curbs on political debate and "politicking" may seem justifiable. Control of the media and curbs on free speech become desirable. All this, as you can imagine, slips easily into structural barriers against having opposition parties in Parliament.

Hence, through misunderstanding the purpose of a state, its institutions and processes -– the constitution, the justice system, the electoral system, the protection of human rights, and at an extreme, even the use of police and military forces (so far, not yet) -– are deployed in ways that are at variance with the provision of justice and security. Instead, these institutions and processes are distorted for the sake of economic growth.

We can see the way Singaporeans sense this. Granted, there are large numbers who are apathetic, but of those who are politically aware, questions of free speech and human rights tend to be non-negotiable. People generally don't see these as barterable against more or less economic growth. You could therefore say that they see these as outside of play as far as government discretion is concerned.

Even when it came to state-funded upgrading of housing blocks, large numbers felt it was inherently wrong to deploy the resources and powers of the state in unjust ways. Many voters were prepared to sacrifice economic benefit for the principle of a fair state.

This is not to say that economic growth and wellbeing aren't important, but these are responsibilities -– to an extent -– of government. The powers of government can legitimately be deployed to these ends, e.g. taxation, subsidies, infrastructure development and various legislation short of infringing on constitutional areas. One may agree or not agree with the current levels of the Goods and Services Tax, or how medical costs and subsidies are arranged. One may also agree or disagree whether casinos will add or subtract from our economic wellbeing, but people can understand that all these questions are really questions of trade-offs, and that if a majority wants it a certain way, then that majority prevails.

But the government's responsibility for economic growth and wellbeing has to be discharged within the frame of the state and its preemptive obligation to provide justice and security. And justice includes human rights and fair political processes.

To say that a track record of economic growth is proof that the state of Singapore is healthy contains the seed of its own ridicule. Economic growth is not the purpose of any state; hence to use growth as testimony in its favour points to a misunderstanding of what the state is for, which in turn leads to the suspicion that the powers of the state have been misdirected to economic objectives rather than its foundational purpose: justice and security.

It's as if a man stands up and declares, "My marriage is in great shape. As proof, let me tell you this: my wife and I have been married for 20 years, and in that time, she has borne me 17 children." You get the idea.

* * * * *

 
Finally, I will touch on the claim that the "West" only recognises a democracy when parties alternate in power, though I'm sure it's not just the "West" but a lot of thinking people around the world.

Since democracy is process, not outcome, it is therefore a bit of a "straw man" argument to condense the views of Singapore's detractors in such a way. If a political process has all the features of a fair and open competitive system, you might say it's democratic even if the same party is returned to power repeatedly. Yet, how fair is fair? How open is open?

Outcomes are useful litmus tests. For example, take questions of gender discrimination in the workplace. Because processes can be so complex, it is hard to say for sure whether or how much discrimination there is. However, by observing an organisation over a long period of time, the fact that, for example, all 12 consecutive CEOs are white heterosexual married males, surely tells you quite a lot about where women, gay people, divorced heterosexual males and other races stand in that organisation. 

Likewise with political outcomes: asking whether different parties alternate in power is a good proxy way of making a judgment.

© Yawning Bread