Democracy And Its Discontents

Other than the oil-rich Gulf states, Singapore is the only country in the world with a per capita GDP over $10,000 that is NOT a democracy (its GDP is $26,500). It is a small city-state that lives in the shadow of large neighbours and has had remarkably clever political leadership. It is an obvious exception to the rule (that economically-successful and liberalized states create democratic pressures) and one that will NOT last. Singapore already has very strong strands of constituional liberalism. It has a vigorous free economy, and rights of property, belief, travel, etc., are staunchly protected. The country is open to the world. (Even its absurd bans on certain foreign newspaper are becoming a thing of the past because of unrestricted internet access) Its people are educated, cosmopolitan, and well-informed about the rest of the world. In fact the World Economic Forum and other independant bodies have regularly rated Singapore one of the most economically free countries in the world, with the cleanest administration system. But it has a limited free press, an even more limited political opposition, AND NO FREE ELECTIONS. Anyone who has visited Singapore can see that it is changing. The younger generation of Singaporeans is less willing to accept a closed political system and the elders recognize that the system will open up. If Lee's successors democratize the country in the next fifteen years in their own terms, they will have a chance to maintain their power and political bias. If not change will happen suddenly and they will likely lose power. But one way or the other, Singapore will be a fully-functioning liberal democracy within a generation.

From The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria

In light of current events in Singapore this seems highly relevant. Arguably Singapore has to democratize further and clamping down on the sole remaining "bastions" (if they can even be called that) of the opposition seems very counterintuitive and counterproductive. Once again they take the simply view that what is good for the "party" is good for the country. Indeed retrospectively, with the hindsight and slightly more worldly view that being a denizen of London has brought, there's a kind of arrogance about the our ruling party, a know-it-all attitude that is highly exasperating. Such propensities are hazardous especially in a world that prizes variety of ideas, diversity of intellectual perspectives and discussion. In somewhat more eloquent language, J.S. Mill noted, in "On Liberty" that everytime an idea or thought is snuffed out in the name of conformity and the will of the majority, the world loses a valuable opportunity to debate and to bring new truths to light. The world is moving too fast and too furiously for any one person or even group of persons to take control.

Zakaria ends the chapter with the following:

The role of the modernizing autocrat is biblical; like Moses, he can lead his country forward, but he rarely makes it to the promised land himself.