[epolanski]

It's not really a proper democracy, the same party has ruled since the founding of the country.

There are severe restrictions on speech, assembly, press and important legal and political barriers for the opposition parties. It is very easy to land in front of a tribunal for defamation or similar for expressing dissent or accusing the government of corruption.

The truth is that Singapore has been lucky that Lee Kuan Yew and most of his successors have been good bureaucrats and politicians. That makes the ruling party also somewhat popular.

Lee Kuan Yew has been an astonishing nation builder and an extremely brilliant man with a huge sensibility for politics and understanding the world.

But it's still a system that's waiting for the wrong people to be put in charge and test the limits of their "democracy".

[claw-el]

>The truth is that Singapore has been lucky that Lee Kuan Yew and most of his successors have been good bureaucrats and politicians. That makes the ruling party also somewhat popular.

I don’t think this is only by luck. Singapore made the decision to ‘pay the bureaucrats well’ so that they can build a career on it. This attracts more people to be a bureaucrat. The alternative is that only already rich people become politicians and bureaucrats or bureaucrats only getting their bag by joining lobbying firm after their time in government.

IMO, the hard part about implementing this ‘pay the bureaucrats well’ system is that it is often hard to determine the market rate as there are often no equivalent roles in the private market.

[ValentineC]

One problem is that many bureaucrats seemingly underperform in the public eye, but continue to have job security as long as they have the favour of the leadership.

[notahacker]

> But it's still a system that's waiting for the wrong people to be put in charge and test the limits of their "democracy".

tbf that applies to all democracies, including genuinely competitive multiparty democracies. Would PAP accept defeat and cede power if they handled a crisis so badly an effective opposition party emerged? That's unclear, as is how many of their appointees would support them in that goal, though it is considerably more likely than nations which do not attempt to hold representative elections. But we've also seen the answer to questions of how much success will someone have in explicitly overriding democratic norms and revelling in open corruption be plenty in the United States with all its storied separation of powers and tradition of political freedoms, and perhaps more surprisingly he gave up quietly to wait for the next election was the answer to what would happen when a narrow majority rejected a guy who'd spent years turning Hungary into his personal fiefdom....

The other quirk about the PAP's paternalism is how many of their authoritarian type policies have been primarily driven by a culture of trying to avoid upsetting people, hence years of doublethink on homosexuality and newspapers being told that publishing aerial before and after photographs of Singapore's coastline might be a touch too provocative towards their neighbours.

[itsthecourier]

Trump is testing the limits of USA democracy every day, just from the top of my mind: top lieutenants worth 5%+ ownership in Thether holding company, Ivanka's husband with the Saudis, Ivanka herself in the ONU, shameless plugs of crypto tokens and cards in the podium after elections, pardons for criminals

democracy failed America

[epolanski]

Winner-takes-all democracies all suffer of the same issue.

There's a reason why every single democracy to turn authoritarian in the last 60 years has been presidential or semi-presidential.

The only parliamentary democracy to turn authoritarian since the 60s has been Sri Lanka, there's not a single other example.

[chillacy]

I think a reading of Roman history shows the failure modes of a senate so often that I wonder if it was ever supposed to work more than a few hundred years.

[verve_rat]

I think you'll find America failed democracy.