Political parties: Does pragmatic Singapore need them?

THE letter by Mr Gilbert Goh on Wednesday, 'Two-party system better', summarises the view held by some Singaporeans that a two-party system would be more beneficial than a one-party system as advocated by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last week. However, the gist of the argument for a two-party system has not run away from 'checks and balances' and 'democracy'. To me, such arguments have not really understood the meaning and relevance of a party in the first place. The fundamental reason why parties are started is that they carry certain political and philosophical ideologies which they think should transcend towards social and economic policies which will best be able to raise the standard of living of society. The idea of having a political party just to ensure checks and balances on the ruling party (as these arguments seem to imply) miss the point completely. In fact, such a mentality would lead to an opposition party opposing for the sake of opposing.

On that same note however, if the governance of a country is based on pragmatism as our leaders have explained over the years, then one should question the whole idea of a party system. Pragmatism in reality is not beholden to any political or philosophical ideology. The best manifestation of it is 'the most suitable policies at the most appropriate times'. Indeed, for a small city-state like Singapore, completely intertwined within the complex web of globalisation and international cities, pragmatism may be the only viable form of governance ideal. We cannot afford to hang on to any pre-subscribed ideology, be it socialism or democracy, just for the sake of doing so.

However, the concept of a party, by nature of its cause for existence, will need its members to share a certain ideology. Surely, however, pragmatism is something that can receive unrestrained expression only through the individual. Any form of party whip will constrain a member's view of what is the most pragmatic way to do something. If a certain policy is pragmatic, however, individuals who do not belong to any party may also subscribe to it jointly (as if in a party) as it is the most pragmatic choice to take.

Would Singapore then be better off without political parties, but responsible and capable individuals putting themselves up for elections? A selected group of 'respected elders' within society can serve as the baseline moderators for such interested individuals. For those people championing a two-party system, surely, a non-party individual-based form of democracy would provide an even more elaborate check-and-balance framework of democracy.

(Above article was published in this form in ST Online Forum on 21st November 2008)