Democratic backsliding in illiberal Singapore

Abstract

Singapore is a well-known illiberal democracy, ruled by one party, the People's Action Party (PAP), uninterruptedly since 1959. The rise of disinformation, the leadership succession crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic have posed challenges to the ruling party's technocratic, ‘soft-authoritarian’ governance style. Is it business as usual in Singapore? Or has its democracy backslid like its regional neighbours? Drawing on an established index of accountability and V-Dem's democratic indicators, our study investigates whether democratic institutions in hybrid regimes such as Singapore have changed. We find that mechanisms of diagonal accountability related to media and civil society have declined. Vertical and horizontal accountability remains weak as expected in a hybrid regime such as Singapore. The PAP government has returned to relying on the law as a ‘fist in velvet glove’ to muzzle dissent and constrain information that may last post pandemic.

The effect of academic freedom on electoral democracy in the Asian region

“…Most of the world communist regimes (except Cuba) are located in Asia: North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Laos. Myanmar and Cambodia also represent weak authoritarian regimes characterized by modest political pluralism and weak institutions, while Singapore provides a durable hybrid regime which is analytically important as it is a well‐known illiberal democracy, being ruled by one party since 1959 (Gilley, 2021; Tan & Preece, 2022). There has been a democratic transition in Malaysia after authoritarian regime breakdown, while Thailand demonstrates democratic backsliding caused by its own history.…”

Might the bioethical principle of individual decisional autonomy have a politically liberalizing effect on soft authoritarian communities?

“…The precise nature of Singapore's governmental structure remains a matter of debate. Some political scientists have analyzed Singapore's political system as a form of "soft authoritarianism" (Tan & Preece, 2022) because it combines various traits of authoritarianism-restrictions on political freedoms and limited democratic participation, among others-with elements of democracy, such as regular elections and legally protected freedoms in the private sphere.…”