Comparative Politics

INTR6135029 - LA66

Nama : Syadilla Rachmanda Cardosh

NIM : 2301878536

Strong-state Democratization in Malaysia and Singapore

This paper is a summary form of a journal entitled Strong-state Democratization in

Malaysia and Singapore written by Dan Slater. Slater's article describes enduring
authoritarian stability in Malaysia and Singapore. According to Slater, the same state powers
that facilitate a stable transition to democracy also empower authoritarian rulers to prevent
democratization altogether.
In the first part, Slater describes what Malaysia and Singapore have in common.
Slater wrote that Malaysia and Singapore have long used authoritarian regimes that are
different from other countries in the world. Both have their own characteristics, one of which
is related to their opposition to the correlation between economic development and
democracy. Quoting from Adam and Fernando, Singapore and Malaysia are considered as
two countries that developed in a long time, became rich, and remained dictatorships until
now.
Slater also added that both Malaysia and Singapore adhere to a hybrid regime, where
a hybrid regime is a system of government that continues to carry out elections, but restricts
civil liberties so that citizens do not know the actual activities of power holders. Or in other
words, both of them carry out elections as a democracy should be, the elections are
sometimes very competitive, but in fact the real power holders never change. This is
evidenced by how Malaysia and Singapore have for a long time been ruled or dominated by
an unshakable ruling party. Another reason Slater gives that makes it clear why these two
countries have their own distinctive features that distinguish them from other countries is the
focus on the centrality of ethnic considerations in all political matters. Malaysia with Malay
Muslim ethnicity and Singapore with Chinese ethnicity.
In the next section, Slater argues that after the end of the cold war, Malaysia and
Singapore became less globally distinctive in all dimensions. This is based on the idea that
development and democracy do not go hand in hand naturally has become commonplace.
Furthermore, Slater sees that authoritarianism has now existed in countries with rapidly
developing economies such as China and Russia. Meanwhile, democracy persists in some
backward corners in Africa and Latin America and tries to be present in the Middle East
which is considered quite poor. Therefore, it is not surprising that the "hybrid regime" or
what was formerly known as "competitive authoritarianism" or more broadly "competitive
authoritarianism". is now one of the most commonly used regime types in the world. So that
more and more countries are now struggling as Malaysia and Singapore have long done to
reconcile electoral politics with ethnic tensions. Clear evidence of electoral competition
against ethnic conflicts can be seen in the cases of Iraq, Kenya, and Serbia. Where the three
countries have clearly shown how the fate of the regime depends on their capacity to
maintain peace within a country. In this case, concerns about ethnic conflict and
redistributive radicalism are the starting point that motivates authoritarian government and
state development simultaneously.
Next, Slater writes that the authoritarianism of Malaysia and Singapore is more than
just regulating elections, the economy, and ethnic politics. But it is the power of the state that
comes from the state apparatus in the two countries that sets them apart from other state
authoritarianism and is what best explains why the two countries are so stable and enduring
on both democratic and authoritarian sides. Furthermore, countries that are classified as
strong countries as referred to by Slater are countries that have great power to co-opt non-
state groups such as political parties, business associations, trade associations, labor unions or
farmers' unions. Co-optation is the process of accepting new elements in political leadership
and implementation to avoid conflicts that can damage an organization. These new elements
can be in the form of a change of leader or policies carried out by the leader.
Strong countries must also be able to play a role in economic development. Whether
just making policies that determine the direction of the economy, or in the form of direct
investment in a project. The tendency of a strong state is always justified on the grounds for
the success of the development program and national stability. Therefore, Slater argues that
state power is seen as a much more reliable source of political stability than authoritarian
rule. The state does not depend on the type of regime, where Democracy can also form a
strong state as well as a dictatorship. Slater's argument is also supported by strong countries
in Asia that have previously democratized before Malaysia and Singapore, such as Japan,
which was driven by the United States, Taiwan and South Korea, which was driven by state
divisions and opposition to authoritarianism. Slightly different from the three countries
mentioned above, the democratization of Malaysia and Singapore was driven by ethnic
tensions, the absence of western powers that directly dominated their internal affairs after
independence, seeking a middle ground between communism and western influence, and a
sense of loyalty to Asian values.
Seeing from the democratization of Korea and Taiwan, the democratization of a
strong state does not mean political destabilization because democratization in this case is
simply an easing of authoritarian restrictions so that the political opposition can compete on
the ground on an almost equal level without fear of repression or restrictions. Under the
authoritarian parties that initiated democratization, Taiwan and South Korea show us that
they are able to develop into welfare states by focusing on addressing the chronic challenges
of controlling public spending and debt, rather than addressing radical challenges to
conservative capitalist development models. Taiwan and South Korea also have relatively
strong fiscal institutions that make them more prepared to deal with pressures and expand
prosperity than Latin American or Southern European countries.
Despite all the conveniences that may be obtained in the democratization process,
Slater argues that there is irony faced by strong state countries, which is that the same state
power that facilitates a stable transition to democracy also empowers rulers to prevent
democratization for longer and the main reason that democratization will work smoothly in
Malaysia and Singapore is also the main reason why democracy is difficult to achieve in
these countries. So for Slater, a strong state must be built before democratization can run
smoothly. Strengthening the state is not meant to install or deepen democracy, but it is
important for the state to be able to create peace in society first because one of the most
difficult challenges in democracy is that democracy requires majority rule and minority
protection. A democracy that cannot maintain peace is not a democracy that most people
consider valuable. Thus democratizing while maintaining the extensive use of punishment,
while maintaining illiberal policies does not make the country less democratic procedurally.