Don't copy democratic model blindly

Tues, Apr 19, 2011

Democratic model: Don't copy it blindly

By Sanjay Perera (with thanks to Straits Times )

SINGAPORE is not a run-of- the-mill state. It has come of age, with citizens asking how we can make this country better and keep democratic practices functional. We also ask whether we can have a First World political system.

Reading some of the discussions so far, I wonder if some Singaporeans believe that a First World political system is one benchmarked by the United States.

In fact, the US is no paragon of demo-cracy. But to understand that, we need to know what we mean by democracy. Here, it should be stated upfront that there is no common definition of democracy. Democracy is just an ideology.

No one knows exactly what it is, but most can point to aspects of it as practised worldwide. At most, we can identify some characteristics normally associated with states considered democratic.

This includes having regular elections for voters to select representatives, and in a fair, transparent manner.

Democracies also adhere to laws, respect human rights in law and in practice, and have checks and balances among different arms of government.

Let's evaluate the US - so highly regarded as a democratic country - by the above criteria.

Indeed it has many laws passed based on democratic principles, but some of the laws have not been enacted consistently.

In World War II, the government interned Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, fearing their split loyalties as the US fought Japan.

Do democracies host concentration camps? If so, what is the difference between them and a fascist state?

Despite its much-vaunted system of checks and balances, America was unable to stop such gross injustices against its own citizens. In fact, appeals to patriotic duty were used to justify the internment. It is true that subsequent governments apologised for the internment and offered reparation. But this does not erase the blot on its record.

There was massive unrest and deaths before America passed its civil rights Bills in the early 1960s. So was it not a demo-cracy before those Bills were passed?

Is there a checklist that determines if a state is a democracy? What are the criteria and who determines them?

Some may argue that America has become more democratic since World War II. But how effective have the checks and balances been in stopping America from unilateral military engagement against other states since then?

America indeed has a First World political system - one rife with First World levels of divisiveness abetted by bipartisan resentment, with its intelligentsia agonising over the breakdown of civil trust amid bitter bipartisan battles.

Singaporeans should not have rosy notions of democracy; nor should they believe the illusion that democracy will cure Singapore's problems.

We should not be seduced by the rhetoric about a First World Parliament, and believe that the country should strive for a political system that emulates those of First World countries.

America and Western European states may be First World in terms of their economic output, though even that position is under threat by other rising states. But their political systems are certainly not in the 'First League'.

Rather than get stuck over labels about 'First World' this or that, Singapore must evolve a political system consistent with its own culture and practice, and true to its history.

Let's say we have a hung Parliament after the coming elections. Would we only then be qualified to tell the world with pride: 'Look, we finally have a democracy.'

The more relevant question is what system the country needs, in order to promote as much freedom as we want to allow ourselves, and what system of government gives fair and equal opportunities to all, while looking after the least advantaged in society.

It is unimaginative to hanker after a so-called First World political system, or worse, to seek to model Singapore's political system on that of the US.

Above all there is one democratic practice we should all strive for: to cast our votes to good purpose, and unite in common purpose for the good of all.

The writer is a former journalist.