Is Singapore a unique form of

They outline what constitutes a democracy as citizen participation in choosing the government, political competition between candidates and government recognition of civil and political rights.

Theory suggests that industrialization promotes political changes to a more open society, and employing this Paul (1992) analyzes the prospects for political liberalization in Singapore. Whither then is Singapore’s democracy?

An argument often forwarded by the establishment in Singapore is that the nation practices, along with certain other Asian states, a different brand of democracy – namely “Asian-style democracy”.

Other critics are more forgiving than Lawson in their assessment of ‘Asian-style democracy’. Making them set aside their fears and step forward now is a difficult task. Ooi (2000) concurs, adding that “democracy, after all, has been regarded as constituting first, legal guarantees of citizens to participate in the formulation of policies. Having rights is recognized as being the beneficiary of someone else’s duty, and comprehensive lists of duties are outlined for people from all ranks of society in Confucianism, thereby safeguarding rights.

These traits have worked to great success in parts of Asia, hence the ‘East Asian Miracle’. With this as the case, can Singapore be considered a democracy. The press is fettered, civil society is weak, and opposition is either co-opted of crushed, leaving real political competition sorely lacking. Singapore’s motivations for this were to avert US alienation of China, and to play on domestic suspicions of post-colonial condescension. It is rather an authoritarian regime attempting to legitimize its brand of government by citing dubious cultural contingencies, such as ‘Asian-style democracy’. This is distinct from liberal democracy in that it does not champion individual rights and civil liberties to the extent the latter does. Hood (1998) suggests that states actually evolve to full-fledged liberal democracies.