Singapore’s Benevolent Autocracy and Philippine’s Malevolent Democracy
Calls for a “benevolent dictatorship” in the Philippines, following Singapore’s reform model from being Southeast Asia’s backwater to becoming one of the best performing city-state economies in the world, was apparent after the unprecedented win of Rodrigo Duterte in the 2016 presidential elections. Described as a “populist” (Abao, 2017), “national boss” (Quimpo, 2017), “Mindanao’s best hope” (Altez and Caday, 2017), “the great repudiator” (Teehankee, 2017), a “fascist” (Bello, 2017), and recently progressive groups attaching “dictator” as an additional moniker, Duterte now is perceived as the Philippine’s version of Lee Kuan Yew for instilling discipline in the Filipinos, albeit the hard way, at the expense of some fundamental liberties. Be that as it may, can Duterte turn the Philippines to a Singapore? Are the Filipinos ready to set aside the hallmarks of democracy in the name of progress? Is Singapore an apt model to follow?
A few years after Singapore’s liberation from the British occupation in 1947, the first election for their legislative assembly was held. This was followed by Lee Kuan Yew’s rise to power along with his People’s Action Party (PAP) after the attainment of their political independence in 1959 (Croissant and Lorenz, 2018). Since then, the PAP has retained control of Singapore’s “electoral authoritarian” regime until today. Despite PAP’s monopoly of power, suppression of political opposition, curtailment of certain freedoms and alienation of the civil society organizations, dissent seems to be absent in Singapore with the silence of its general public against some aggregates of state coercion. This is because while power is centralized, the authoritarian regime is able to improve the quality of life of its people by delivering basic services in health, shelter and education among others through a stable merit-based bureaucracy reducing the likelihood of corruption and increasing people’s trust in their government.
Singapore’s formula of “soft authoritarianism” where autocracy is cloaked with trappings of democratic contraptions, has brought them to where they are at the moment. History would reveal that Philippines and Singapore took off from an equal platform some five decades ago and records would show that the former was even the forerunner in the region’s (Southeast Asia) economic and political charts. Sadly, Philippines has been outdone by many of its neighbors, much more by Singapore.
In contrast, the Philippines enjoyed the restoration of democracy since the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986, yet it dragged the country’s progress and somehow the situation worsened as oligarchs took turns in taking advantage of the Philippine’s rich natural resources and innate Filipino talents. While public participation may be strong with a very active civil society community along with the presence of democratic foundations, development remains elusive due to the entrenchment of patronage arrangements and clientelism in the Filipino political culture and structures further contributing to the weakness of state institutions in arresting the growing indices of corruption. The country’s resources therefore are not equitably distributed to the margins but are consolidated among the few elites in the apex of the social pyramid widening the gap between the rich and the poor. This social inequity makes public antagonism against power ever animated in the Philippines.
From what I see, it is neither the regime structure nor political culture that can break or make nations. It is not electoral authoritarianism in Singapore that made it what it is today. It is also not the failed democracy of the Philippines that caused its slump in many facets. It is the ability and strength (or lack of it) of the state and its institutions to deliver the public goods that fortifies a nation’s ability to develop.
With Singapore’s equitable distribution of public goods across all segments of its population, it has attained political and economic stability while the Philippine’s patronage politics has perverted its democracy. With the Philippine’s lackluster law enforcement and besmirched agencies, Filipinos will never achieve the discipline the Singaporeans observe in respect of their laws, rules and regulations despite a very strong political will from the chief executive. If Filipinos are not able to institutionalize electoral and political reforms, the Philippine government will continue to be run by dynastic families further amassing wealth to their advantage. If Filipinos are not able to allow the regions to enjoy their hard-earned resources, the Philippines will continue to be captured by imperial elites keeping the countryside more impoverished as they already are. If the Filipinos are not able to strengthen meritocracy in civil service, nepotism will just reinforce corruption in the bureaucracy.
However, while Singapore does not exist in a perfect society for it has also its share of shortcomings, the Philippines on the other hand is not a total waste for it has a huge potential for greatness. Cliché as it may sound, national unity is an imperative of national survival for the Philippines. Filipinos need to solidify their ranks in ensuring genuine institutional reforms that will reward everyone enduring returns.
References:
Abao, Carmel Veloso. (2017). Engaging Duterte: That Space Between Populism and Pluralism. In A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Ed. Nicole Curato. Bughaw Publishing, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. Pp. 301-318
Altez, Jesse Angelo L. and Caday, Cloyde A. (2017). The Mindanaon President. In A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Ed. Nicole Curato. Bughaw Publishing, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. Pp. 111-126
Bello, Walden. (2017). Rodrigo Duterte: A Fascist Original. In A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Ed. Nicole Curato. Bughaw Publishing, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. Pp. 77-92
Croissant, Aurel and Lorenz, Philip. 2018. Singapore: Contradicting Conventional Wisdom About Authoritarianism, State and Development. Comparative Politics in Southeast Asia. An Introduction to Government and Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing AG. Switzerland. 2018. Pp. 255-289.
Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. (2017). Duterte’s War on Drugs: The Securitization of Illegal Drugs and the Return of the National Boss Rule. In A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Ed. Nicole Curato. Bughaw Publishing, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. Pp. 145-166
Teehankee, Julio C. (2017). Was Duterte’s Rise Inevitable?. In A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Ed. Nicole Curato. Bughaw Publishing, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. Pp. 57-67
Teehankee, Julio C. (2017). Was Duterte’s Rise Inevitable?. In A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Ed. Nicole Curato. Bughaw Publishing, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. Pp. 57-67
