Politicians in a functioning Democracy have a delicate balancing act to perform. First, they have a personal conviction to keep their society running and perhaps improve it in some way. But, second, to be able to make policy of that nature, politicians must first capture the hearts and minds of the electorate by assuring voters that they will get the government they want in exchange for their votes. Perhaps certain individual politicians are idealistic and envision a society for all, but the electorate have a less inclusive bent and blame certain segments of the population for their daily struggles. Or vice versa. In such cases, and in our current time increasingly so, it seems that the politician must make a choice. That choice has to be popular enough to get and keep them in power, but also has to do right by the people as a whole — regardless of animosity among the different demographics that make up the voting public. Yet, resolving what looks like an irreconcilable conflict is what functioning Democracies do best. Policy-making does not fall on a single politician alone. If Democracy were a sport, everybody gets to play.
The problem with most Democracies today is that they function on a short-term basis, limited by whichever political party’s turn it is to make policy before the next election. In most cases, it has to be this way. The easiest way to win an election is to over-promise a party’s supporters while hoping to win over the undecided. The party that wins the election is then hard-pressed to deliver on what it promised, causing disappointment among the voters, leaving fertile ground for a new batch of over-promises to sprout just in time for the next election. The USA, for example, has been swinging left and right over several past elections with neither side yielding satisfactory enough results to remain in power longer than a term or two. The revolving door of UK Prime Ministers until Starmer shows the difficulty in making policy decisions stick when political leaders get replaced even within an election cycle. In this version of the Democracy game, everyone is playing to win at the expense of everyone else. It’s party vs party, people vs people. If everyone is fighting for possession, who cares what or even where the goal is? But if nobody scores, nobody wins.
The recent political situation in the USA offers the alternative extreme. Whatever criticism there is of Donald Trump, number 47 is clearly pursuing his own convictions about making America great again. He and the Republican party are currently holding political power with majority control over Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court. The President, himself, is essentially ruling by decree, a.k.a. Executive Order, through which he is doing his best to bring about an America that is Great for the people favoured by Project 2025. Trump and the Republican party won the last election fair and square, so by the rules of Democracy, they are entitled to rule as they are so doing, even though their current policies seem to be penalizing other Americans outside of Project 2025 through mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, and the rolling back of DEI policies and women’s reproductive rights. That the American people have made the “No Kings” protests one of the most attended in US history speaks of the concern they have about how twisted the game has since become for them.
Democracies function best when people dialogue over what they need or want. In the best case scenario, potential problems and conflicts are identified and objectively researched even before they become problems and policy is made consultatively – not unilaterally – for the greater good. There will be compromises, of course, but the important thing is that the process is inclusive of the voting population and not exclude parts of it. A functioning Democracy is transparent and upfront about what can and cannot be done for whom, while setting realistic expectations rather than promising the moon. Politicians who know how to under-promise and over-deliver usually retain real executive power longer through winning public trust and appreciation. Because of a stable government that consistently delivers on its promises, Singapore has made remarkable progress as a Democratic nation, and for its people over a relatively short period. Because the government has largely earned public trust, policy has a long runway for debate, dialogue and research before implementation. Ideally, in a Democracy, politicians exist neither to act on their own agenda nor to seek popular approval but to listen, talk, and think before acting on informed input.
That being said, it was Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kwan Yew, and his equally idealistic cabinet who designed the blueprint for modern Singapore based on their conviction that the tiny island state with no natural resources would not only survive but thrive. Taking advantage of their early political majority, the government at independence promised big, made concrete plans and delivered as scheduled. Its methods have been criticized as not exactly being Democratic in maintaining its majority until now, but keeping that majority has made it possible to deliver on long-term plans, even up to fifty years in advance. Its policies are necessarily inclusive. A tiny island will not survive without its people. With constant upgrading of the ‘stadium’ and its amenities that are open for all to enjoy – though the VIP section is a bit harder to get into – the government will do everything it can to crank the Kallang Roar up to the max. A nation’s success heavily depends on the political will to do what is needful, not popular, but driven by a political conviction to make it work, no matter what.
People, especially in increasingly diverse societies, are bound to conflict over their differences. Everyone has an agenda, everyone is looking out for number one. But when you boil down all the differences, we distill a common layer — the needful. Everyone needs a nice place to live, have sufficient resources to live on, and a way to make their own lives meaningful. If a government can provide for at least these three needs, people will be less inclined to quarrel over what makes each other different. Democracy is the game that makes this happen. Politicians take their cue from the spectators cheering them on, set the nation’s goals accordingly and work as a team to score. When played right, everybody wins.
(1068 words)
Inspired by Singapore-Cambridge GCE ‘A’ Level H1 General Paper (Paper 1) 2020 Question #8