

Singapore and its lack of Democracy - mariorz
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_266146.html?vgnmr=1

======
jorgeortiz85
Hogwash.

Free market regimes that happen to be authoritarian have succeeded because of
extrinsic reasons (international conditions), not intrinsic ones (the
authoritarian model is fundamentally a better one than the democratic model).

During the Cold War, democratic regimes that were not free market (or did not
sufficiently recognize private property, specifically private property owned
by former colonial powers (i.e., US and Europe)) were consistently harassed or
even toppled by the dominant superpower (see Allende's Chile, Mossadegh's
Iran). For the most part, those regimes that were toppled were replaced by
authoritarian (but free market) regimes.

In the last half of the 21st century, being a free market regime was both a
necessary and a sufficient condition for survival, whereas being a democratic
regime was neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for survival. These
two facts strongly encourage the success of authoritarian free market regimes.

Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes during the Cold War?
Well, they certainly existed in Western Europe, but the development story
there is complicated by Europe's historically high levels of development (and
the Marshall Plan).

Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes in developing countries?
Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Much of the private property in
developing countries was owned by former colonial powers. A democratic
government would be very tempted to dabble in nationalism (and
nationalization), risking external regime overthrow.

If the West is puzzled by the success of Singapore and China, they should
examine the history of their own foreign relations. The West gradually opened
up to China as China gradually became more free market, despite the fact that
China didn't (at all) open up politically. Had the conditions for Western
engagement been political rather than economic, we might have seen a
democratic (but perhaps not free market) China.

~~~
bokonist
_Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes in developing
countries? Democracy is susceptible to populist acts._

Isn't that like saying democracy is susceptible to democracy?

Let's use the word "market supportive" to describe governments that support
and enable property rights and contract law ( the essence of a free market).

How many countries became more "market supportive" as a democracy? Britain,
the U.S., Germany, Austria, France, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong - these countries all either developed their
market oriented legal systems as authoritarian states or they inherited their
system from a colonial ruler.

I can think of numerous examples of democracies ( or failed attempts at
democracy) moving in a less market supportive direction. Compare Britain 1884
( the year of the Reform Act granting universal male suffrage ) to Britain
1950. Germany 1871 to Germany 1935. Russia under monarchy to Russia under the
populist Bolshevik revolutionary government. Or Argentina in the first half of
the 20th century to Argentina in the second half the century. France under any
of the monarchies to France under any of the succeeding republics. India under
the Raj to India post-Raj. Zimbabwe pre-universal suffrage, to Zimbabwe after
universal suffrage.

The only counter examples I can think of are the former Soviet republics.
However, that is not really fair, since 1) it would be impossible to be more
anti-property than the Soviet system and 2) the Soviet system arose as a
result of a populist revolution. Ireland might be another example, though I
haven't studied its history enough.

------
noonespecial
It seems that democracy inevitably creeps towards totalitarianism, while
totalitarianism creeps toward democracy. One wonders if theres not some
optimized blend in the middle somewhere that we have yet to achieve, that
could yield better results than either of the pure forms of the two alone.

------
chaostheory
Good: social order and a virtually non-existent crime rate

Bad: virtually non-existent creativity / independent thought

from the South China Morning Post: "married couples [in Singapore] turn up
each year at a clinic for sexual problems with an unusual dilemma - they don't
know how to have sex.

'There are probably many more who are keeping quiet because they are too
embarrassed to come forward,' V. Atputharajah, the doctor who runs the centre,
told the Straits Times...

While there are no official figures on unconsummated marriages in the city-
state, Dr Atputharajah estimated that one couple in 200 had the problem. Chong
Yap Sent, an associate consultant at the National University Hospital, said
the figure was probably twice to four times as high as that."

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Gosh, so many start-up opportunities. So little time.

------
mindslight
Of course personal freedoms aren't required for a successful economy.

 _The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is
confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the
authorities_

This sounds precisely where the US is headed, with watchlists and selective
enforcement of laws.

And of course those who are financially successful can spend their wealth to
mitigate the lack of personal freedoms if they so desire. I'm sure
Singaporeans can buy chewing gum at a premium just like Americans can buy
marijuana.

------
mariorz
I don't think this article is particularly good, but I've always wondered how
people come to accept living without certain freedoms, so I found it
interesting in this regard.

~~~
time_management
The benefit of liberal democracy is that it prevents the corrupt and powerful
few from acquiring the leverage to do great damage, allowing for technological
and civil progress over the long haul.

Well-run dictatorships can be prosperous in the short run, but the inexorable
decay into rule by a corrupt elite will bankrupt a society. Once a madman or
idiot gets into power, decades or centuries of progress will be erased. One
benefit of liberal democracy is that it's much more robust, relying on laws
and traditions rather than the people running it. Look at how much damage the
Bush Administration has done to the US. Were it not for our liberal,
democratic political traditions, they'd have caused 100 times more ruin by
this point, and we wouldn't have a very good chance of being rid of them in
Jan. 2009.

~~~
johnyzee
I think the jury is still out on whether a corrupt elite cannot hijack a
democratic system. You got rid of "Bush" in '93 yet here he is again. More to
the point, the powers behind the Bushes and probably any other candidate you
get to choose from are still there - big money sponsors.

And that doesn't even touch upon the other issue, that of the corrupt elite
being put in place by the democratic system itself, as happened with basically
all the fascist dictators in the 30s. Who's to say that won't happen again?

~~~
time_management
_I think the jury is still out on whether a corrupt elite cannot hijack a
democratic system._

I don't think the jury's out, so to speak. It can definitely happen, and I
think US plutocracy is definitely corroding the democracy. Democracy is a
complex system and needs a lot of safeguards; a constitution and an electoral
process are only two of many necessary ingredients.

