The following was my response to a question posed in a forum that I participate in.
Question: Is a one-party system of government a viable alternative?
Reply:
The question itself presupposes that there is an absolute standard in political ideology. This is hardly the case. While most countries in the world are democracies to at least some degree, it is a relatively new phenomenon compared to the rest of their histories. History records autocracies that have thrived culturally and economically. But I concede of course, that it was during a different time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to democracy. It has served many people well. And I think with an increasingly globalized world, aspects of democracy will inevitably insinuate into systems of government of countries that want to engage the rest of the world. China is a good example. Although its politics remain Communist, its largely-free market economy bears the hallmarks of a democratic system.
However, what I am opposed to, is the imposition of a particular institutionalized form of democracy as an absolute ideal. This is what is happening today. The West believes that what works for them must necessarily work for everyone else. And it regularly prescribes it as though it were a panacea for the world's ills. This is utterly ludicrous. Look at Iraq. Look at Palestine. Look at Lebanon. All democracies. And all failed or failing states (I know, Palestine isn't technically a state, but you get the point). One wonders if the West's enthusiasm to push for democracy in historically non-democratic states is not just an insidious means to an hegemonic end.
So is a single-party government a viable alternative? Yes and no. It really depends on the time and place. Democracy for democracy's sake is foolish. If it works for a nation at a particular time in its history, then so be it. If not, don't trouble trouble if you don't want trouble to trouble you. The right political ideology is not necessarily democracy; it is whatever works for the country.
Singapore is a good example. For better or for worse, we are officially a democracy. Some would argue that we are only nominally democratic. But it does not cause me grief. I take heart in the fact that I am a citizen of what is today a First World Nation with one of the most vibrant and advanced economies in the world. Our government and people achieved this in the mere span of 40 years. Would we have been able to do this if we had subscribed to the democratic ideals espoused by the West? I submit an unequivocal "No". We built an improbable gem of a nation because we had a strong leader and a strong government that did not need to waste time in a useless tug of war with an opposition.
Today the opposition in Singapore seems worse off than if was 40 years ago. It is more fractious and populated largely by hollow demagogues who make better clowns than leaders. The two or three credible opposition leaders make for sorry figures not because of their political isolation, but because of the buffoonery within their own ranks. But this doesn't cause me grief. The future of my nation lies in an able government that it already has, not in a rabble-rousing opposition. Many people think that democracy necessarily means opposition for the sake of it. I reject that notion completely. It is not only puerile but also pernicious to a young nation's development.
But some would argue that an opposition would serve as a check and balance for the government. True, in principle, but not necessarily so. In another post in this forum, I asked: "What is the purpose of checks and balances?" Someone replied that it was to ensure accountability. But I begged to differ. They are both the same thing. Both checks and balances and accountability are not ends in themselves but means to one. That end being good governance. Why would anyone want a completely transparent government that cannot govern competently? So while accountability is important, more critical is the quality of government. In Singapore, I think we have a good measure of both. Again, not because of the presence of an opposition, but I believe, because of the ethic and wisdom of our carefully-chosen leaders. Singapore's socio-economic achievements speak to the efficacy of our system and the quality of the leaders who run it.
And with regard to your question on how to ensure the best policies are in place in a one-party system, it boils down to the same thing - you get competent and qualified people to enact them. Now if you leave politics to the whims of the electorate alone, you will end up with popular but not necessarily competent leaders. Limiting or at least managing the impact of the "free market" on your eventual candidates by having a very stringent party recruitment regime will go some way in ensuring that you keep the riffraff out. It smacks of elitism, but hell, if you're not superior to the rest of us in some way, what qualifies you to lead in the first place? Sure - Liberte, egalite, fraternite. But also "elite" for a well-qualified government.
So in summary, the right form of government for a country is not necessarily democracy, but whatever works for it, be it a one-party system or otherwise.
