Imagethief

As someone who is cynical about politics, and who has been mostly alienated from the politics of his native country (although who still cranks himself up to vote in presidential elections), Imagethief has low expectations of politicians and is consequently seldom disappointed. Nevertheless, occasionally something comes along that deserves attention. This article actually came along last week but I didn't have time to get to it. I wanted to spare a moment before it was too old to be worth commenting on.

I am referring to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's recent comments in New Zealand concerning the "efficiency" of single party government. This was published in the subscription only Financial Times, but you can find the whole article here and here. It's worth reading the whole thing, but the best bit is this:

“Endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points,” said Mr Lee about the political systems in Australia and New Zealand.

He said John Howard, the Australian prime minister, “spends all his time dealing with this party politics. The result is you don’t have a lot of time to worry about the long-term future.”

Dominant party rule was the best system for a small, multiracial country like Singapore, Mr Lee said, as he prepared to leave New Zealand, whose population of 4m is similar in size and ethnic complexity to that of the city-state.

Here are Imagethief's thoughts, in no particular order.

First, hats off. It is a mighty oratorical achievement to insult virtually all of your allies and neighbors in one statement. That includes hosts Australia (which remains an inexplicably popular destination for expatriate Singaporeans despite its apparently dysfunctional government) and New Zealand, the United States (whose government extends military protection to Singapore), all of Western Europe, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, poor old Indonesia (which has labored mightily to convert itself to a functioning multiparty democracy after thirty years of dictatorship only to hear that it was all a waste of time) and even next-door neighbor Malaysia. Frankly, it's a wonder that such a clearly hopeless cast of characters has accomplished so much in spite of their screwed up governments.

Now, onto the "efficiency" claim. To paraphrase a recent article in The Economist, which made an excellent and similar point about justice, democratic government isn't supposed to be efficient. It's supposed to ensure that the electorate is fully represented at the cost, if needs be, of some inefficiency. Efficiency may, in fact, be inversely proportional to representation. Dictatorial autocracy, for example, is spectacularly efficient, with little time wasted on wonkery, political point-scoring or legislative debate. But you'd need balls of laminated steel to argue with a straight face that it is a superior system of government to representative democracy.

But you have to have something to hang it on, right? Efficiency will do as well as the next rationalization, which, as it happens, is also included in the story. That would be the statement about single party government being best for a "small, multiracial country" such as Singapore. It's funny how explanations for the superiority of single-party government are as numerous as single-party governments and all mutually incompatible. From Singapore, it's best for small, multiracial countries. From China it's best for enormous, developing ones. From Turkmenistan it's best because we goddamn well said so and if you don't like it you can rot in an airless hole until your limbs turn black. The inconsistency tends to cheapen all arguments. As a PR man, I suggest that all single-party governments get together and develop a single set of talking points.

Speaking of PR tactics, it might be nice if the advocates for single-party government adopted another of our common techniques and found a few credible third-party spokespeople. The problem with the prime minister of the ruling party of a single-party government advocating for single-party government is that he could, just conceivably, be seen to have a vested interest in the status-quo. But it's surprisingly hard to find someone who's not within the power structure of such a scheme but who is willing to go to bat for it.

Of course there is also the logical issue. The prime minister has made a very strong statement that single-party rule is best for Singapore. Looking at the criticisms he has leveled at multi-party governments, one might assume that a multi-party government would be at high risk of actually harming Singapore. If that is the case, why are the opposition parties --ineffectual though they are-- allowed to exist? Surely if it would mean harm the risk of a true multi-party government (as opposed to a lonely couple of token opposition MPs) being voted in is unacceptable. Perhaps opposition should be banned outright, just to be safe. Anything else seems like a breach of responsibility. Let's not flirt with a dangerous multi-party approach simply for the sake of appearance.

The devilish thing is that the prime minister has a point. At its worst, multi party democracy can be beyond inefficient; it can be completely hopeless. Partisan squabble can drown out statesmanship, electorates can be polarized, moderate voters can be turned off, and sensible legislation can die in gridlock. And Imagethief must confess, having observed a couple of Singapore elections, that he has been less than electrified by the statesmanship of the opposition, such as it is. On the other hand, at its best multi party democracy can be wondrous. A sound opposition can challenge the thinking of the party in power, develop credible alternative policies, enforce honesty, help to prevent groupthink, keep an electorate engaged and offer a coherent alternative when one is needed. Gridlock and polarization aren't the only things that can cause cynicism. Entrenchment can do the same.

The prime minister's father, Lee Kuan Yew, seems to agree that an opposition can have value. He once said, "I want a world-class opposition, not a riff-raff." Of course, he also said, "Ideally we should have Team A, Team B, equally balanced, so that we can have a swap and the system will run. We have not been able to do this in Singapore because our population is only 4 million, and the people at the top, with proven track records—not just in ability, but in character, determination, commitment—will not be more than 2,000." So, one must conclude that multiparty government would be OK if a credible opposition could be formed, but Singapore only has enough talent for one decent party. Shame about that.

Imagethief likes Singapore and respects the achievements of the government there. He also admires the government's solid record of transparency and integrity, and the speed and vigor with which it has acted when its integrity is threatened. The benefits are obvious in Singapore's prosperity and reputation for sound governance. The problem isn't that Singapore necessarily needs an alternative now, it's that it might need one someday but find itself without the mechanism to make that happen in a peaceful and orderly fashion. Multiparty governments may be inefficient, but they are like insurance. At best you might never miss the alternative, but thank god you have it when the need arises.

Perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, and it was simply a fit of commercial pique. After, all the Financial Times reports:

Mr Lee blamed Australia’s multi-party system for his failure to persuade Canberra to open its aviation market to state-owned Singapore Airlines, which is seeking to fly the transpacific route from Sydney to Los Angeles.

But neither the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs website nor the Prime Minister's Office website offer any clarification or transcripts, so the news article is all I have to go on.

Note: The transcript of an interesting Australian radio interview on "Asian values in politics" that I discovered while researching this.