Week 8 – Democracy
DEMOCRACY: A PATH TO AUTHORITARIAN RULE?
Democracy is championed as the best political system there is. Not perfect, mind you, but one that defends the rights of the people better than any other. After all, demos means people, and kratos means rule. Together, democracy means people power – power is given to the people. Simply put, democracy is “the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (Abraham Lincoln)
Authoritarian rule, on the other hand, has been criticized by many. Very quickly, the quote comes to mind: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Any individual who holds great power in his hands is feared across the world. Qin Shi Huang, Roman Emperor Commodus, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussien are but a few of them. All of those listed have been removed forcibly, both by internal and external factions. Their actions and rule have shaped the word tyranny into meaning oppressive rule.
Yet, democracy is not as fair and just as it is portrayed. The impression is that if the people hold the power, then how can the people’s rights be violated? But it can and it has. And it can all be seen on the local scene, in Singapore itself.
Singapore is self-proclaimed a democracy. It has both presidential as well as parliamentary elections every four to five years. Every citizen of age has the constitutional right to vote. But this is where it ends. The average citizen has no say in national policies. Even the people’s representatives, the MPs and grassroots leaders, have limited say. The situation is compounded by the fact that the political opposition is but a façade. Held down by the various legislation, such as the Internal Security Act and defamations lawsuits, opposition presence in the Parliament is negligible. Policy-makers are essentially from the ruling party, as are those who approve or critic of such policies. The people’s power extents only as far as to vote for the ruling party or not. And having a majority of the constituencies uncontested, the ruling party is essentially re-elected even before the elections begin. As such, even the choice of the people is negligible, given that they only have one choice. With this, Singapore’s system can hardly be considered democratic.
But we have to consider one thing. If the people were unhappy with the government, or felt highly subjected, they can choose to abstain from voting altogether, which is their constitutional right. But they chose not to. In other words, they have chosen this government and have cast their vote to have this government remain in power. This government, which has largely denied the people’s voice to be heard; the very same government which has used the ISA to detain her own citizens without trial over the years; as well as the same government which has sued more than a few of her people to bankruptcy for being outspoken in opposition.
It all started right at independence, when the charismatic then-opposition leader Mr Lee Kuan Yew won over the hearts of the people by pledging them economic prosperity, social stability and security, if only they would support him whole-heartedly, and trust his policies. Facing racial riots, communism, and the lack of resources and work, the people then signed a social contract with him, exchanging their silent vote for all that he promised. And delivered he did. Singapore was built from scratch, from one facing oblivion at the separation from Malaysia, to an economical regional power. Singapore is considered one of the safest cities in the world, one where people of many races and religions can live side b side. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his successors in PAP has continually delivered what he promised at the start, and they have continually expected the people to keep their end of the bargain: to give their silent vote.
In the United States, it is happening as well. Days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act, that gives wide, undefined discretionary powers to US law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism. In the emotional forest-fires in the days after the attacks, both houses of the Congress greeted the Act with overwhelming approval and the Act was passed into law. The Act consists of many sections that can be considered to be very authoritarian and very un-democratic indeed.
Under the Patriot Act, any form of communication can be taped and recorded and used as evidence. Searches and arrests can be made without warrants. Citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial or rights to legal representation. Non-citizens can also be detained without trial and rights, but with a definite timeframe. Law enforcement agencies cannot be forced to divulge the whereabouts or happenings of the detainees. Gag orders can be imposed on the press and judicial courts without explanation. The definition of terrorism has been expanded to include activities that are “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State”. And this is in relation to the expansion of death penalty to include acts of or support of acts of terrorism.
Despite many sections of the Act infringing on the rights of the individual, especially the citizen of US, the Act was passed with overwhelming support. This reflects a phenomena similar to that of Singapore: that the people, giving their vote to support and give up their individual rights in exchange for something, in this case it would be the promise of protection from terrorism.
Both in Singapore and United States, many of the laws actually are quite similar to that in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Yet the two countries are democracies, with the people surrendering their vote to turn the country more than two shades of authoritarian. Nazi Germany is the polar opposite of democratic Singapore and United States, yet they have much in common, including their beginnings. Nazi Germany was a democracy. Hitler was voted into power. So now, what is democratic and what is authoritarian? Now, that’s a scary thought.
