I often use Singapore in class discussions of “modernizing authoritarian” regimes (and one more current than Mexico, Brazil, or South Korea). It also serves as an interesting case of semi-authoritarian, soft-authoritarian, or bureaucratic-authoritarian regime—and the relationship between such regimes & (possible) future democratization.
This video is a good launch pad for discussion. Although it was produced for a Dutch network, nearly all of the 10 mins is in English (just ignore the Dutch subtitles).
Singapore presents an interesting case on many levels. Elections are not rigged in a technical sense- but the electoral system is carefully designed to marginalise the opposition, coupled with its draconian media laws. But even if an election was "free and fair" in the way we understand it, the PAP would win on merit in any case.
There is far more chance of change happening in Malaysia- owing to the country's greater ethnic tensions, high levels of corruption and government ineptitude, etc. Opposition parties made big gains at the last polls and have won state elections, but if there really were a free and fair contest, BN would most likely lose. Certainly in peninsular Malaysia.
Absolutely, that's what makes Singapore so interesting. Those on the left (e.g. Chavistas) will argue that a one-party (or one-party-dominant) regime isn't necessarily undemocratic ... until confronted w/ a conservative/neoliberal Singapore. Similarly, those on the right who have argued for democracy suddenly find themselves approving of LQY's approach. So it's interesting to force them to confront their (unstated) underlying assumptions.
Also, I like to compare Singapore to Chicago, another one-party regime dominated by a family (the Daly's) by combination of hook, crook, and popular policies.
Singapore has a pretty generous welfare state on top of that, and one of the lowest corruption rates.
One-party dominant democracies would include places like Botswana (the BDP has ruled since independence and won free and fair elections), Luxembourg (the CSV has been the largest party consistently since 1919 when it began under a different name and has been in government for all but five years of that, and Alberta (the Tories have ruled since 1971).
A dominant-party system has existed in many Latin American countries at one stage or another. Though this sort of hegemony was often achieved by "imposición".
I've used Botswana as an example before, which I do consider a one-party dominant democracy (same would go for South Africa).
But, yes, a Schumpeterian view of democracy would have trouble accepting a one-party system as "democratic."
Yes but at the same time, some of the Eastern Bloc states- East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland- had ostensibly multi-party systems where non-Marxist parties were tolerated if they supported the regime. Of course, these parties also played their part in bringing the system down.
Consider too that in Botswana and Samoa, for instance, the hereditary leadership system- tribal kings as such- are entwined with the political structure. Indeed, in many parts of Africa, tribal kings are an important stabilising factor in often unstable political systems- since colonialism and nation-states have been merely superimposed upon existing cultural/state entities.
It also opens up the issue of the role played by traditional leadership in indigenous communities and in present-day autonomous structures where they exist or will be created. In Panama, the Naso have their king. Hereditary chiefly lines survive among numerous indigenous groups in the USA and Canada, and among the Mapuche in Chile, but I'm not sure about elsewhere in the Americas.
Bolivian history does show examples of a dominant-party system:
- Conservative Party from 1880 to 1899
- Liberal Party from 1899 to 1920
- Republican Party in the 1920s, before the upheavals between the 1930s and the 1952 revolution.
- the MNR from 1952 to 1964
Some might say that MAS is on its way to dominating a new dominant-party system, but there are signs that this will not be the case. And what's to be made by an opinion poll I've read recently, that suggested Evo has lost a fair amount of support?
All excellent point, of course. And multiparty authoritarian regimes aren't limited to Soviet satellites, of course. Brazil's 1964-1985 military regime had an "official" opposition party, too.
I've also argued before that MAS is a repetition of the MNR, which is a different kind of dominant/hegemonic party than the ones from the "liberal republic" period. But, like you, I'm skeptical that MAS can extend its hegemony as long as the MNR (12 years), though it will certainly finish Morales's term (to come close at 10 years).
The Brazilian military regime was notably less brutal than most in South America (except possibly Ecuador in the 70s). The opposition party did attract dissidents, and there was a lessening of controls in its later years- so there was a controlled return to democracy.
The military regimes of Guatemala and El Salvador operated under a constitutional cloak, as did Panama under Torrijos and Noriega. In each of the three cases, a likely opposition victory (El Salvador in 1972, Guatemala in 1974, Panama in 1984) was denied by massive vote-rigging.
The MNR hegemony was helped by the fact the old parties had collapsed, and the primary opposition came from the FSB. But by 1960, splits within the MNR were emerging- which is similar to the resent splits from MAS (MSM and MPS). One argument is that Evo and MAS are making a similar mistake to the MNR of 50 years ago, in that the pursuit of hegemony at all costs can potentially backfire as fractures result.
Following the regional elections, you're now seeing political realigments and eventually a clearer picture as to where various parties stand.
In the 1966 election that saw Rene Barrientos elected, his main opposition came from the FSB (who nominated Bernardino Bilbao Rioja, as in 1951), and two factions of the MNR. Also contesting were a front for the PCB, and also ex-president Enrique Hertzog on behalf of remnants of the pre-1952 parties. Furthermore, Barrientos won with a smaller majority than what the MNR had won in 1956 and 1960.
Brazil's regime was "less brutal" -- but it was still pretty brutal. Either way, the rest of your argument is similar to one I've been making for the past year or so. Moreover, as I (sort of) argue in a forthcoming piece in AQ, the radical decentralization will make future hegemonic projects unlikely (if not impossible).
Yes- this was very evident even in the regional and municipal elections. But it also depends on whether you see a fragmented party system emerge, or a system where there are two, three or four major parties emerging. Based on those elections, the only parties other than MAS that can be considered "national" (on the basis of their presence in more than one department) would seem to be MSM, UN, CP and MNR.
Thank you so much for sharing this amazingly inspirational post and these great videos.
This is one of the best post I found so far. The contents are very good and very informative.I subscribed to your RSS feed by the way!Thanks, this is really cool!
fobus holsters
This is one of the best post I found so far. The contents are very good and very informative.I subscribed to your RSS feed by the way!Thanks, this is really cool Watch Immortals Online for Free