Tri-Debate

Original Article: Democracy is not a populist whore
Related Article: Market Fundamentalism

I have been intrigued with a debate that has been sparked off firstly by Shianux of Wannabe Lawyer who has written a piece deriding the SDP policies. In relation to that, another blogger, 7-8 has examined his argument and scrutinized certain fallacies. I must confess, rightfully that my understanding of economic theory probably is not of equal standing as the above two authors, instead I approach this debate with a different focus: namely, what is the kind of economic organization a society can benefit from? While I understand there are idiosyncratic standards for different countries and cultures, I will try to follow on an idealistic principle, before considering the pragmatics. I will also contend with some of the ethics of argument that has been raised in the debate (i.e. these points were raised in the comments section of both articles).

I will start off by saying that I am more in agreement with 7-8's argument than Shianux. What worries me about Shianux's argument is that he proclaims that his criticism towards both the PAP and the SDP are for their "socialist and communitarian tendencies", and it is not clear to me, if he is opposed to these tendencies per say or that these tendencies are simply incompatibile with the broad economic framework of both parties or the nation or the global economy. Shianux also earlier identified himself, through my own inference that he is a "libertarian" and this would indicate some confusion regarding his political-economic position. In addition, he supports Tyler Cowen (of Marginal Revolution), whose economic policies are usually of the neoclassical and free-market variety.

Quite possibly, Shianux would belong to the group of "libertarians" in the US, along with people such as Stirner, who dedicate themselves to free-market capitalism, and this would, in my opinion, be the minority among the larger tradition of libertarianism, such as the European libertarian socialist. It will be difficult, and definitely impossible in this small space, to elaborate and argue on the possible misfits of market fundamentalism theory, but nevertheless I will state my basic grievance with the theory. Firstly, the invisible hand of the market is an impossible concept that captures the complexities of human rights and needs, and comes close to commodizing nearly all aspects of human life. Secondly, wage-capitalism is close to being a form of slavery system, and certainly isn't free by any means. It isn't solely responsible for the contribution of inequality, but a significant contributor nevertheless. Thirdly, the basis of human social organisation shouldn't be transfering power to the hands of the few who have incredible power to dictate the social life of individuals (regardless if we speak of political or economic domains of power), but to distribute them equally. And market fundamentalism doesn't provide that platform to work on.

Therefore, I do agree with 7-8's postulation that a reliance on free-market theory is very risky and dangerous, and simply attacking the SDP and PAP for tendencies that are otherwise contrary to free-market theory, is misdirected in the first place. What we would want to ensure for any political party should achieve is to surrender power to the population directly, and ensure they are involved in the decision-making process themselves. The market was never the right domain, politics can still continue to be the right arena, what should be modified is the structure and ethos of political power, then we will reach for a more equitable and just democratic organization. There are many proposals as to how to reach this consensus, but my support isn't with the force or mechanics of market theory.

In the midst of the debate, a thorny question has been raised: Given the dominance of the PAP, should Shianux be excused for his harangue against the SDP, or insidiously, should we continue to be overtly critical to the Opposition? There are a few assumptions behind this equation: 1) the PAP is big and bad enough. We should give some minimal form of support for the Opposition, even if they aren't as competent as we would like them to be. 2) The Opposition is not perfect, but that doesn't mean they are that horrible. 3) Shianux is free to engage in constructive debate about the economic policies of the SDP but he should refrain from the profanity and cursing as that crosses the line.

These three basic assumptions are, to my mind, inter-related and as such, I won't answer them sequentially. Instead, I think the rather broad theme is, no doubt, the reference to Shianux's title, democracy. Namely, what does democracy entail? Does that mean the distribution of power, even if the members are undeserving of it? Does that mean free speech and rights should be accorded to members of society who might be deemed incompetent, stupid and "dumbass"? And would democracy also indicate the unabridled freedom of throwing in vulgarity and emotional angst to substantiate an argument?

My brief answer, as I wouldn't have the time to extrapolate it into 10 or more pages, is that Shianux is completely free to accuse the SDP as malignantly as he pleases. If one speaks of democracy, or rather free speech, then one is freely able to label any individual or organization an idiot, donkey-ass or moron as he/she chooses. However, the exercising of free speech doesn't imply that value judgements should be excluded from the process. One is still able to address if such language or speeches contribute to the productivity of the dialogue or communicative process between parties. Hence, calling CSJ or MM Lee as first-rate dorks may not be prohibited but it certainly doesn't substantiate your argument any better (NB: unfortunately, psychological research has found that the use of vulgarity or crude language tends to add authenticity to the argument). Likewise, the reader's contention of Shianux's article should not be with his use of language, but rather his argumentive points, which 7-8 has graciously engaged with.

Hence, when it comes to supporting either political party, the fundamental issue, which shouldn't be deviated away from, is whose arguments or policies do you support with? Shianux deserves the full right not to side with the PAP or the SDP, if he deems both parties to craft policies antithetical to his liking or position. Any member of society should decide for him/herself the kind of social policies compatible with their fundamental beliefs, even if it is as grossly outrageous as supporting a fascists dictator, such as Hitler. Thus, when an ST newspaper report earlier covered on some young students supporting Hitler, our right course to action should not be to lecture them on the evils of supporting Hitler, but to spur them to beg the question of what would be the consequences of their beliefs in supporting fascism [Oddly, in this regard, the leaders in authority did the right thing by asking them to complete a research project on the history of Hitler. Sadly, this course of action should be encouraged and undertaken for all, especially on dissents, instead of suing them for libel].

What does all this imply for the political scene in Singapore? Throw in the towel since the Oppositions are too unfaithful or give them support nonetheless? Neither. This means that every individual should undertake the freedom to change the political means, through any means they see fit. There are several ways, a myrid of tactics one can consider, each bearing their own weight, costs and consequences. Supporting the Opposition outright wouldn't necessarily lead to a direct victory over the current system of oppression and domination, and supporting the PAP might also lead to dire situations that inflate their control [or the corporate managers' control]. Simply, I don't see any contradiction if everyone chooses to support neither, but participates in pushing both parties to adopt goals that are synonymous with achieving a system of social equality and liberty. For instance, I don't think both sides have addressed the rights of gay people in Singapore, and it makes no difference to me whoever sits on the top branches of society [although one can argue, in theory, that if the SDP is able to supplant a more open system of democracy and free speech, then there is potential to open up discussions on these social issues]. I also forsee the possibility, however remote, of opening up gaps within the current political regime to change aspects of social policy (e.g. the PAP's strong support for "feminism", though this is contentious in its own right), to me, the possibilities of change should not solely be in the hands of political power exchanges. Instead, a social movement, here and elsewhere, should always be based on distributing that level of power equally among people and in my mind, this will only be achieved through various means, and will simply not be tolerated by the minds of the narrow-minded.