Let’s harness our collective strengths across party lines, eschew arrogance in all forms, reduce the phenomenon of mounting voter frustration and preserve our unity as a nation
The political landscape is rapidly shifting, with new opposition parties being formed and major leadership changes within the incumbent ruling party … Anticipation of the next GE is mounting
by Dinesh Senan: 11 April 2019
As is to be welcomed, the performance expectations demanded by a more educated and financially secure populace in the democratic nations of the world today, of their appointed representatives in government, (than was prevalent just a half century ago), are now far broader.
And this is a good thing. For this represents the flowering of democracy, yielding a more colourful, more beautiful garden in which to live our lives more fully, qualitatively and quantitatively.
Yet, this broadening of expectations, representing a greater diversity of aspirations, imposes ever greater challenges and strains upon the creaking strictures of the old Westminster Model of parliamentary elections, where the simplistic and crude first-past-the-post, winner-take-all outcome effectively lays asunder the strengths of the ‘losing’ party.
Whilst the old Westminster Model might have been satisfactory 50 years ago, today’s electorate has perhaps a far more sophisticated and realistic awareness of the limited capability of any one political party to be able to meet all of its diverse expectations, across a growing multiplicity of requisite competencies in governance.
In this winner-take-all scenario, the winning party is almost invariably the one that commands the strongest competencies in the ‘base level’ areas of governance, (the more ‘physiological and safety’ related needs, comprising material / economic needs of food, security and shelter). This party will likely always win, in a simplistic first-past-the-post wins scenario, as not all areas of governance carry equal ‘weightage’. Because those areas of governance represent the more essential ‘need to have’ competencies. But the other ‘less or non-essential’ and ‘specialised’ competencies, (comprising the more psychological and fulfilment-related needs, including civil liberties and freedom of expression, the promulgation of the arts and culture , and the more ‘specialist competencies’ including healthcare, transportation, etc), carry relatively ‘lighter’ weightage, and will therefore be more likely to be laid asunder at the ballot box within the current Electoral Model, as they are, relatively speaking, merely ‘nice to haves’ when seen from within a Maslow-esque hierarchy of needs.
And when forced to make just one ‘either/or’ choice, the electorate is effectively bereft of any ‘real’ alternative, to a political party that clearly dominates in the ‘need-to-have’ competencies. Hence, in the Singapore context, the growing frustration of an electorate which perennially sees the same dominant party winning outright control of the House, mostly due to its undeniable prowess and half century of tangibly demonstrable capability in the provision of the more ‘base level’ realms of governance. At the expense, perhaps, of the ‘nice-to-have’ competencies.
Hence the growing collective sense of frustration of today’s electorate, with the overall quality of the governance it is able to obtain.
Such systemically-induced frustration, (resulting from the ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral model), is arguably also the central underlying reason for the phenomenon of the ‘angry voter’ seen to be escalating in many democratic nations of the world. Where voters are largely left to choose between Party A or Party B, when neither is likely to be able to satisfy all the requisite governance competencies expected of the voter. Resulting not necessarily in thoughtful votes being cast for carefully contemplated leadership and positive change through the endorsement of the most competent of electoral candidates, but rather in votes being cast against the status quo, and to signal outright unhappiness of the voter. Not quite the same thing at all. And sometimes with significantly detrimental consequences for the nations concerned, as is perhaps being witnessed in the UK and the US today.
So what are we, the citizens, to do, whilst still operating within the constraints of the current electoral model?
Whilst there may, at some more distant point in time, eventually emerge a more sophisticated and much needed ‘upgrade’ to the Westminster Model, (Model 2.0?), wherein voters might then possibly get to more sensibly elect their representatives for each specialised area of governance distinctly, (as has previously been envisaged and described by this author earlier: see The Straits Times: May 15th, 2015: “A novel proposal for political reform”), thereby possibly going a greater distance towards the better and more competent realisation of the electorate’s many different expectations of its government, such an ‘evolutionary’ Model 2.0 is not likely to emerge for several more years. Evolution takes time.
In the interim, however, we must strive to find some way to reduce the escalation of such systemically-induced voter frustration.
This, I believe, can be accomplished, even within the current Electoral Model, through a change of our mindset. The prevailing Model, which is characterised by adversarial, ‘opposition’ politicking, might perhaps be replaced with a Higher Spirit of ‘enlightened co-governance’ in parliament, even amongst a growing multiplicity of political parties in the House.
This can be achieved through a conscious choice that we the citizens of Singapore might make, as we collectively contemplate how we might steer the way forward in our continued growth and progress as an ever-happier nation. Avoiding as best we can the voter-frustration-engendered pitfalls that have befallen other democratic nations of the world. By harnessing as much as possible the available governance competencies, (comprising both the base and upper levels of the hierarchy of needs), regardless of party affiliations.
We can do this, if we, (this is the collective ‘we’: embracing every private citizen, every public servant and every politician regardless of political party), adopted a Higher Spirit, and a higher Mindset that embraces the following:
- We resolve to act always, first and foremost, as one united people … we resolve therefore that even if we belong to different political parties, we first recognise the underlying Singaporean identity in the members of every Party;
- We strive to drop the ridiculously stultifying notion of ‘opposition for the sake of opposition’ in politics … it’s an archaic notion and is entirely unnecessary for an enlightened people … and without losing the voice of our respective Opinions, which may very well differ robustly, we might consider to drop the archaic label of ‘opposition party’ too, and regard ALL parties as ‘co-governing parties’ within our One House;
- We replace it instead with the Higher Spirit of ‘co-governance’, where we listen deeply and respectfully to each other, regardless of party colours, and recognise that differences of Opinion are not necessarily the same thing as differences of Principle.
A Higher Vision:
If we can achieve these here in Singapore, many benefits would accrue. Each party might then be able to welcome with humility the constructive criticism from another party in the House, regardless of whether it is the dominant one or not, and be genuinely willing to give credit where credit is due, regardless of party. Operating in this Higher Spirit within the House, no party need be seen as a threat to the others. A complementing of competencies might then sensibly emerge across the House, for the ultimate benefit of all Singaporeans. Non-dominant parties may then also strategically and smartly choose to focus only on certain more specific areas of governance when they campaign for a seat in the House, and when they build and organise their parties, along more specific lines of governance-competencies, whilst removing the need to ‘pretend’ to be a ‘replacement’ of the dominant party especially in the ‘base level’ realms of governance. Non-dominant parties could also help extend good ideas to refine the implementation of policies propounded by the dominant party, where the underlying principles may be shared, though the implementation could be improved. This would require the dominant party, concomitantly, to set aside arrogance and be willing to truly listen, and to always allow for reason to triumph.
This call to be led by a ‘Higher Spirit’ could not have been better enunciated than by Thomas Jefferson. At a time of grave tension and great stress within the fledgling United States, between the Federalists, (with monarchists amongst their lot), and the Republicans, (led by Jefferson), the latter’s enlightened words at his Inauguration drew handshakes between the ‘adversaries’ thereafter:
“All … will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind … Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbedas monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
– Inaugural Presidential Address of Thomas Jefferson: March 4th, 1801
How we govern ourselves as we move forward is really a choice we might make. I pray that a Higher Spirit of respectful co-governance might be allowed to prevail across all party lines, despite the pitfalls of the current Westminster Model within which we are still operating, by trusting in our collective oneness as fellow Singaporeans in striving to do what’s best for our Singapore. It is ultimately a matter of our collective choice … and it is not so idealistic as to be entirely beyond us, acting as one united, mature, and more enlightened people, to make.
The Pragmatic Idealist 