Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism
The form of the political power exercised in a state can be used to determine the ideology behind such power. In that regard, the analysis of the legal framework of Singapore and the events of 2009 leads to the conclusion that the form of power is authoritarian. In 2009, several events of human rights abuse were published by Human Rights Watch, an independent organization dedicated to “defending and protecting human rights” (Human Rights Watch, 2010a). The analysis of those events indicates an authoritarian form of power in Singapore.
Both authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are derived from an autocratic ideology, i.e. the doctrine that the government is resided in the hands of one individual or a group of individuals with power over the rest of the society (SSC109, 2010). Autocracy in the case of Singapore in that matter is apparent through the fact that the government is led by a single ruling party since 1959, which is the People’s Action Party (PAP) (Human Rights Watch, 2010b, p. 1). The definition of authoritarianism implies that the exercise of the power of the government is limited to the political arena, leaving a measure of choice to individuals, given they do not interfere with the rule of the leader. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, implies total control in every aspect of the live of the society. In that regard, it can be stated that both forms of government systems are similar to a large extent, with the difference being mainly in the degree to which they exercise this power, and whether such control goes beyond political issues.
The range of aspects in which human rights are abused in Singapore includes criminal justice, sexual orientation and gender identity, and migrant domestic workers and trafficking (Human Rights Watch, 2010b). Nevertheless, it can be stated the main control exercised by Singaporeans is related to freedom of assembly, expression, and association. Indeed, the high execution rates for drug-related offenses is one of the major human rights issues in Singapore, but execution is a legislation issue that is not restricted to Singapore. In that regard, in the United States, in which citizens “enjoy a broad range of civil liberties”, there are still 35 states that impose the death penalty (Human Rights Watch, 2011). Thus, the right of assembly, expression, and the association was the main aspect in which the most abuses were reported.
Specifying those abuses, it can be stated that all of them are related to the political arena and criticizing the government, i.e. the ruling party in Singapore. Such reported violations such as procession without a permit, engaging in domestic policies, and speaking in public, are all covers for what the government thinks to be interference of its rule. In other aspects, it can be seen that the government leaves to the courts the right to interpret the laws on issues that touch on other aspects of the society.
Thus, it can be concluded that Singapore is an authoritarian state, in the way exercises its power and control. The government limits the choice of individuals in the society to those aspects that do not compromise the authority of the government and do not interfere with the rule of the leading party. If the state was totalitarian the aspects that the government’s control would have touched upon might have included social, cultural, and other aspects of life.
The Political Concept of Democracy
Referring to Singapore as an authoritarian state, it can be stated that authoritarianism is mainly represented through the way the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP exercises its political power. The relaxation of the government’s curbs on freedom of expression, although lacking, can be seen as a positive move forward. Nevertheless, such a move is still far from the move to democracy in the country. The application of the political concept of democracy will involve several aspects.
Defining democracy, it can be stated that such a concept is based on the ideology that values the individual, with “both the values and the processes of the political system revolve around him or her” (SSC109, 2010, p. 29). In that regard, with the political system revolving around the individual, individuals participate in the decisions that affect one’s life (Harrison & Dye, 2008, p. 199). One of the main characteristics of a classic democracy is the participation in an environment in which diversity and opposition will flourish, and in which conflicts are resolved through political processes (Perry & Perry, 2009, p. 414).
Applying the aforementioned to the case of Singapore will mean that citizens will have the right to express the opinions that oppose or criticize the rule of the government. Citizens swill the right to express their views and promote ideas that critical to the way the government rules. Having their full rights in terms of assembly, expression, and association, other political parties will gain more exposure to people, and they will have the right to elect their representatives. More rooms will be allowed for political themes, and censorship will be removed.
Exercising real, rather than figurative representative democracy, the parliament in Singapore, which as of 2009 has 82 of the 84 parliamentarians from PAP, will be more diverse. Exhibiting views and opinions that clash will lead to that political processes will take place, accepting laws which resemble a democratic society and respects equality of all people, individual dignity, and less government control over individuals. Ensuring “a more diverse set of voices in Parliament” will lead to regulating the laws which violate individual dignities and equality rights, such as the punishment through canning – a form of torture punishment, confinement without trial, death sentences for drug-related offences, and migrant workers laws. The use of political processes in regulating conflicting views on an issue will ensure taking the sides which are closer to the international standards on human rights.
It can be seen that the application of the concept of real democracy will start through giving the full right for freedom of assembly, expression, and association, as those rights will lead to ending the one-party rule in the state, and accordingly will lead to the formation of a real representative democracy. In what concerns the question of whether the state should govern economic aspects – democratic socialism, or not – democratic capitalism, such choice does not touch on human rights standards and thus, there are both arguments for and against in either cases.
It can be concluded that the application of the concept of democracy to the full extent will result in a true political modernizations and compliance with international human rights standards. Accordingly, the application of true democracy will end the restrictions on civil and political rights, which according to the latest Human Rights Watch report are still taking place in Singapore.
References
Harrison, B. C., & Dye, T. R. (2008). Power and society : an introduction to the social sciences (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Human Rights Watch. (2010a). About Us. Human Rights Watch. Web.
Human Rights Watch. (2010b). Singapore. Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch. (2011). WORLD REPORT 2011: The Events of 2010. Human Rights Watch.
Perry, J. A., & Perry, E. (2009). Contemporary society : an introduction to social science (12th ed.). Boston: Pearson A and B.
SSC109. (2010). Introduction to Social Sciences: Study Unit 3. Study Notes. SIM University.