"He was one of the founders of the governing People's Action Party (PAP), which has governed the country continuously since independence"

Very democratic country.

▲

thisislife2 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As the article points out, Lee Kuan Yew did not believe that democracy meant that his (or any other party in power) should also help opposition parties politically thrive. While such political philosophies can be abused by authoritarians (and Lee was an authoritarian) in a democracy, I do see the wisdom in it. For example, Nehru - India's first Prime Minister - invited even some opposition leaders into his Cabinet as his party got an absolute majority in the first election post-independence. That was a rare departure from the convention of a Parliamentary Democracy, where only members from the ruling party or coalition form the Cabinet. Nehru however wanted to promote democratic values in India and since his party didn't really have an opposition, he invited some into the Cabinet to ensure their voice would have prominence in the media and the public. But he later abandoned this practise because the political ideological differences made this untenable in practise.

▲

roenxi 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have no idea and probably not, but it is a bit more complex than that. There isn't any particular rule saying that the only functional democratic model is multi-party democracy. One could imagine a successful democratic model with one party allowing diverse internal factions, for example. It is really hard to get a read on China, but their success raises some interesting questions of how exactly their internal party decision making is set up.

That being said, I would assume that a one party state isn't very democratic. It'd be an unstable democracy.

▲

Pay08 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From what I've read (and this may very well be outdated), Singapore is generally democratic, but the PAP does such a good job of running the country that people don't vote for other parties.

▲

bjourne 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

PAP has exploited Singapore's strict libel laws to bankrupt opposition parties by suing for defamation. It is not so difficult to retain power when the opposition has no money for campaigning.

▲

roenxi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah we've heard that before from people who turned out to be filthy liars. Not saying it is impossible, the Singapore numbers are borderline plausible, but if the leading party gets more than 60% of the vote I'm going to assume shenanigans unless I've seen some pretty strong evidence beyond what a propaganda department would put out. People don't agree with each other all that much.

Opposition can literally just converge to the PAP positions over time. Or internal factionalism causes a schism and leads to 2 parties forming from one overwhelming ruling party. In political settings there are enormous incentives to set up roughly 50-50 coalitions.

	▲	arjie 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s interesting. They’re “cheating” a bit at least. They have these things called Group Representation Constituencies: multiple people represent a single constituency but you vote once for the team. So they’re clearly using this to up-weight areas they guarantee and to release ethnic cohesion voting (each team must have minority members in it). Interesting tricks that don’t require ballot stuffing etc. It seems that Singapore/PAP figured out that policy control could effectively keep power without the violence traditionally associated with authoritarianism. I wonder what other dark arts they employ.

▲

p_j_w 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The Chinese Communist Party and United Russia might say the same thing.

▲

itsthecourier 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

been in China for decades, benevolent dictatorships allow long term planning, elections every 4 years favor short term decisions, populism and waste a huge percentage of time in after elections and pre-elections

China and Singapore showed democracy is not necessarily the most productive way to run a country

	▲	claw-el 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The election happening once in a while helps ensure if the long term planning is still aligned with the population, because, new people will be born and some others will ‘age out’, the original long term planning might no longer represent the voice of this new set of population.
	▲	Pay08 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		A country shouldn't be a factory. It doesn't need to be "productive".

▲

zuzululu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you know Philippines adopted American style democracy and were much more wealthier than Singapore and other Asian countries?

How do you think Philiippines compare now to Singapore as a result of its "democracy" ?

▲

hirako2000 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Competitively authoritarian, so, democratic.

If Singapore isn't a democracy then the U.S is a dictature.

	▲	zuzululu 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Merit remains the foundation of its ruling style, the other, whatever suits the mood of the ruling power behind democratic labels and institutions that ultimately have violated its own constitution. People throw out the word democracy like they know what it is.