Singapore: Democratization due to Economic Success?

In today’s lecture I found it most interesting how Xavier said that soft-liners may take the upper-hand in a political regime in situation of economic success. This “we’ve accomplished out objectives under authoritarianism and can now go back to democracy” approach differs from more predictable factors of economic crisis and war which evoke revolution. O’Donnell and Schmitter’s research gives some insight into the situation, clarifying that the timing of an opening towards liberalisation cannot be correlated predictably with the performance of authoritarian rulers in meeting socioeconomic goals (Transition from Authoritarian Rule, pg. 20). Using Brazil’s liberalisation from a military authoritarianism in the 1970s as an example, O’Donnell and Schmitter state that democratization took place ‘out of concern over the expansion and growing autonomy of state agencies which had accompanied economic growth’ (pg.20). Theoretically, this sort of transition is also said to be less aggressive and is undertaken with a higher degree of self-confidence. The opposition attempt to attain ‘electoral ratification’ and ‘popular legitimation,’ and thus hold positive international public opinion with their claim of democratisation (pg. 20).

With this historical evidence and theory in mind, could Singapore’s current “democracy” under a Westminster system be an example of this type of revolutionary change? Criticism of the legitimacy of Singapore’s somewhat illiberal democracy aside, the modification of the 1991 Parliamentary Elections Act resulted in elections being plurality-based for group representation constituencies. During authoritarian leader Lee Kuan Yew’s term as prime minister from 1959 to 1990, he tackled widespread unemployment, raised living standards, implemented a large scale public housing program and liberalised the economy. As a result, through being heavily export-driven, the ‘Asian Tiger’ has become a major player in the global economy.

Therefore the questions remain: did the control of authoritarianism provide a cushioned transition period into economic liberalization? Once Singapore’s open economy showed clear signs of prosperity and stability, did the “we’ve accomplished out objectives under authoritarianism and can now go back to democracy” approach evoke change? Thus, does Singapore follow O’Donnell and Schmitter’s model at all? Are there any other more recent examples of democratization due to an economically successful authoritarianism regime?