Introduction to Comparative
Politics
Dr. Emanuel Richter
Dept. of Politics and Society
University of California, Irvine
Midterm
Exam
Essay Topic: Please describe some of the
political characteristics of
contemporary United States in comparison to other political systems in the
world.
For this paper, I have chosen the
political system in Singapore to compare with the US political system. The
reason for that is that between the years of 1959 and 1990 - the period during
which Lee Kuan Yew was prime minister -
the country became one of the most prosperous nation in Southeast Asia. I found
that particularly interesting…
The contemporary political system
of the United States is the two-party political system . The two dominant
parties in the US are the Republicans and the Democrats. The two-party
political system is one in which the electorate gives its votes largely to only
two major parties and in which one or the other party can win a majority in the
legislature.
Within the two major parties in the
United States, many factions are
struggling for power.
The presence of divergent interests
under a single party canopy masks a process of struggle and compromise that
under a multiparty system is out in the open.
In addition to the
single-member-district system, in the United States the presidential system
induces parties to seek majority support. No fractional party can elect its
presidential candidate, and third parties in national politics have proved to
be protest
movements more than serious
electoral enterprises.
The two-party system in the US is
said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a
majority in the parliament and govern. The stability shown by the government of
the United States has not been entirely due to its party system, it has been
argued, but has been promoted also by the fixed tenure and strong
constitutional position of the president.
The two-party system moderates the
animosities of political strife. To appeal for the support of a majority of
voters, a party must present a program sympathetic to the desires of most of
the politically active elements of the population. In the formulation of
such a program an effort must be
made to reconcile the conflicting interests of different sectors of the
population. This enables the party, if expedient, to resist demands that it
commit itself without reservation to the policies urged by any particular
extremist element.
In effect, the party is a coalition
for the purpose of campaigning for office. With two major parties of similar
views and of approximately equal strength competing for control of a
government, it is possible for governmental control to alternate between the
parties without shifts in policy so radical as to incite minorities to
resistance.
The framers of the Constitution
were especially concerned with limiting the power of the government and
securing the liberty of citizens. The separation of the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches of government, the checks and balances of each against
the others, and the explicit
guarantees of individual liberty were all designed to strike a balance between
authority and liberty—the central purpose of U.S. constitutional law.
Singapore's
electorate includes every adult citizen who is a registered voter, and voting is compulsory (as opposed to the
US). A number of parties contest elections, but since 1959 Singaporean politics
have been dominated by the People's Action Party (PAP). The PAP's ability to
maintain its control largely has been attributable to Singapore's rapid
economic growth and improved social welfare. In addition, the PAP often has
suppressed and co-opted domestic opposition--notably through internal-security
laws that allow political dissidents to be held indefinitely without trial--and
it has promoted a national paternalistic ideology through a variety of laws and
corporate institutions. The emphasis of this ideology has been a rigid public
morality focused on personal appearance and cleanliness, political loyalty, and
family planning. The Singaporean society is based on communitarian values. In other words, the interests of society take
precedence over that of the individual as opposed to the individualism of
America. Ralf Dahrendorf described (with
a hint of sarcasm) the Singaporean political society as “Law-abiding citizens
who assiduously attend to their own affairs and otherwise live inoffensive
private lives need not fear the wrath of their leaders… But those who criticize
government for its unaccountable power, those who use their freedom of speech
to expose nepotism, those who dare put up alternative candidates in elections –
these people are in trouble”.
Lee Kuan Yew (politician and
lawyer) was prime minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990. During his long
rule, Singapore became the most prosperous nation in Southeast Asia. Lee
brought his country an efficient administration and spectacular prosperity at
the cost of a mildly authoritarian style of government that sometimes infringed
on civil liberties. By the 1980s Singapore under Lee's guidance had a per
capita income second in East Asia only to Japan's, and the country had become a
chief financial center of Southeast
Asia. Keeping in mind the long years of English colonialization of Singapore,
that was an impressive achievement.
I, personally think that it cannot
be argued which political system is “better” as such. In Singapore family ties
are very strong - it’s part of the culture of all Asian countries. As a result,
Singaporeans have a natural tendency to be apathetic about politics and the government.
For that reason, it’s better for their society that the government be strong,
otherwise, a chaotic clan-like society will result. Americans in contrast are very
individualistic, and their constitution had to be built such that that
individuality was protected. The soft form of authoritarianism exercised in
Singapore would not work in the US because it would infringe upon the
individual freedom of expression. Americans are more free to express themselves
- the price to pay: drug problems, high crime rates, torn families. Singaporean
society is “cleaner” at the expense of more curbs on freedom of expression. I
conclude that both countries are very prosperous from an economic point of
view.
References:
1. Encyclopedia
Britannica: Miscellaneous articles on the US and Singaporean political systems.
2. “A
Communitarian Critique of Authoritarianism” by Daniel Bell.
3. “Culture Is Destiny - A
Conversation With Lee Kuan Yew” by Fareed Zakaria.