The Bonsai under the Banyan Tree: Democracy and Democratisation in Singapore
Michael Barr approaches the 2011 general election in Singapore through the lens of democratization, examining the structures of power and systems involved with ‘electing’ officials, despite clear evidence of an authoritarian regime. First examining Singaporean democratic history, he argues for slight but distinct change within these structures which led to the largest opposition gain in the nation’s history. Barr positions his article in the context of Levitsky and Way’s argument of ‘competitive authoritarianism’ but does not use this paradigm as the focus. Rather, his writing aims to “unearth the rationale of Singapore’s authoritarianism” (31), in a more specific, detailed manner. The article is less about arguing for or against wider scholarship and more about delving into a detailed, specific case of authoritarianism.
His analysis of Singapore’s authoritarian rationale revolves around a metaphor, the title of the article. The Banyan tree, the overwhelming force of authoritarian systems is deconstructed. He argues with direct evidence of leaders’ writing the glaring elitist, technocratic philosophy of government. The consequences of this rationale are present in their anti-democratic behavior, “freshly institutionalized” (33) since the beginning of democracy. A straightforward example he uses is the preconditions to be president – presidents must be a former high-status government official (who are almost all aligned with the major party) or a leader of a $100 million company. With greater detail than shown here, Barr illustrates the structures in place which create the authorities and insulated power environment.
On the other hand, Singaporean democratic processes are labeled as a ‘bonsai’ of true democratic structures, “constrained, pruned, stunted, and mainly for show” (32). This is not a new hypothesis, but his point of difference lies in the new 2011 election, arguing that despite all odds, the bonsai of democracy grew larger than the powerful had wanted it to grow. Opposition grew accustomed to the power structures and have played around it. The rise of the internet and tireless opposition effort to gather collective curiosity, Barr argues, creates the conditions for Singapore’s authoritarian power holders to be challenged in a way never seen before in Singapore.
The only direct conclusion Barr makes about authoritarianism is that it is indeed possible to create an electoral power structure today that is insulated and perpetuated despite clear democratic illusions. A further question might also be important: for how long? In a globalized world, the political exportation of democracy might always seep into countries like Singapore, as Barr also argues. A more pointed question of longevity of such authoritarian counties like Singapore could be an important aspect to analysis of undemocratic regimes.
Not only does Barr’s argument hold up through his use of evidence, but it holds the test of time. Public opinion in recent years has seen a similar trajectory of louder opposition against the still-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). As more pressure is put onto the existing government, and a new generation of voters emerge, that Barr accurately notices a decade ago, the elections in 2025 have the potential for a larger opposition turnout. Barr effectively communicates the grey areas of which Singaporean elections operate, between electoral autocracy (unfair elections) and electoral democracy (fair elections). He argues how even though there are obvious technocratic and elitist patterns in Singapore’s power structures, there is still a persistent and growing opposition against the ruling party. It is very easy to categories regimes in terms of one or the other, but this article agues for a greyer area in distinguishing between the two.
Barr intentionally sidesteps any wider context of scholarship debates about authoritarianism, seeking to understand the workings of Singapore on its own. This article does not approach any wider question about how successful Singapore is economically as a result of authoritarian rule, nor compare to any other regimes or democratic nations in this light. It would be a useful discussion to contrast Singaporean economic performance alongside similar democratic Southeast Asian countries to distinguish any differences. Granted, correlation does not mean causation, so this would be a complex task. This article might also be useful to use in tandem with comparison of other countries, like China, who use a dominant one-party-dominance electoral system, and the different processes that have eroded in the Singaporean camp, while continued strong in China.
While the author does not look to fit his argument in wider scholarship, it does slot interestingly into Levitsky and Way’s concept of ‘competitive authoritarianism’. Singapore is under no process of ideological central mission, like a totalitarian regime, nor a deeply entrenched authoritarian regime like Mussolini’s Italy – but also with large barriers to power and a very skewed playing field, which Barr argues is starting to tilt back slowly. His illustration of the Singaporean regime points toward a mix between authoritarian and competitive authoritarian, depending on the time period. In its history, it may have been tending toward the former, today perhaps the latter. One might see this change further in the future, if the government reins the opposition in, or further protest reaches the polls in 2025.
Because Barr’s argument is insulated within just the walls of a nation, and the evidence of which he pulls from is sound and effective to characterise the Singaporean democratic rationale, little can be questioned in terms of argumentation. However, the negative space around his argument, as Singapore in relation with other countries and in comparison, with differing, more democratic nations, is yet to be explored. Further scholarship on the performance of this regime, compared to similar countries, as well as the longevity of systems like these, would be a useful next step.
No comments:
Post a Comment