Civil and political society in Singapore and Southeast Asia: Emerging trends and definitions

This is the deficiency of recent discussions that aim to draw a dichotomous distinction between civil and political society in Singapore.

Essentially some commentators define civil society as groups and associations in between the state and family that are non-partisan. They work with the government to provide direct services and bring about improvements in public policy.

While on the other hand, political society is defined as the realm where political parties contest for dominance over government.

Defining political society in this way brings to fore several problems. For instance when it comes to political participation, it severely restricts the role of the private citizen who is not a member of a political party. Is the citizen only to act as a voter to cast his or her ballot during elections? Or in the Singapore case, limit his or her participation to giving feedback and raising comments in sanctioned discussion groups? Is there no scope for the citizen to participate as an individual without enrolling in a group?

Political participation goes beyond political party activity. It involves private citizen initiative at many levels to organise and raise issues through a variety of mechanisms. Beyond, the individual, citizen groups too can organise and raise politically relevant issues without restricting themselves to the political party mechanism. Political participation, being wide, requires us to think beyond political party activity when we speak of political society.

In Singapore, the ruling PAP has tried to define political participation in narrow terms. It directs any spontaneous political activity or commentary by individuals or groups towards opposition parties. Or it reacts to them politically as opposition party activity or activists. This is understandable but not necessarily excusable, for as the dominant political force, the PAP designs political participation in such narrow terms for its own strategic advantage.

This has had a spill over effect that has led some commentators and lay people to also accept politics in such narrow terms. However, once again this should not constrain us from reviewing such a restricted definition of politics.

Even if we do want to contemplate equating political society with the activity of political parties, such a proposition must ensure that there exists a reasonably level playing field for such conduct. Restrictions on freedom of association, freedom of expression and unwarranted restrictions on political party activities should not exist in the acute form that it does here in the Republic. Opposition political parties in Singapore, face severe difficulties to engage in "political society". After contesting general elections, all other periods in between become a constant struggle against the machinery of a one party dominant state.

Political and civil rights therefore need to be guaranteed and safeguarded. And alternative political activity should not be treated as illegitimate and criminal. If such conditions do not exist, then it is not meaningful to speak of a "political society" in political party terms.

Commentators, by separating civil and political society in such a clinical manner, also fail to acknowledge the role of civil society in the political process. Civil society, in addition to its role as a service provider for the community, is often looked upon to contribute to the democratisation process.

In addition to political party actors, civil society groups and their members are seen as another set of actors coming together to urge reforms in the constitution to ensure that democratic governance is in place.

Frequently, civil society has been forced into this role because "political society" in political party terms does not meaningfully exist. The ruling political authorities monopolise the space within "political society" so much so that other political parties can barely survive. By default, the recourse for democratic reform is channeled through another mechanism, that is, civil society. This can been seen from cases in Thailand, Indonesia and most recently in Malaysia where citizen groups have come together to demand for political reform. Ranging from farmers in Thailand, students in Indonesia and a range of disparate groups in Malaysia, civil society groups have, in addition to their sectional role, have come together to urge democratic reforms.

One consequence of such civic activity is that governments in Southeast Asia have recognised that there is a new emerging force of democratisation. In reaction, conservative regimes in the region have adopted a variety of strategies to deal with this new development.

One method has been to urge civil society groups to be non-partisan. Civil society groups are asked not to directly challenge prevailing government. Instead they are encouraged to use the political party system and to contest elections. This has been the rhetoric employed in the Malaysian case.

By pushing individuals and groups into the political party realm, it becomes easier for the dominant political authorities to better manage the actors behind these emerging democratic forces. This task is made easier because the incumbent political authorities already dominate the political party space.

In other instances, such as in Thailand, civil society groups are coaxed to be partners of the ruling authority to help in policy discussion and formulation. In Singapore, civil society is asked to focus on complementing the state in the distribution of services and to encourage more volunteerism within the community.

Such measures have been successful. Many civil society groups now have begun to use this rhetoric to insist that they are non-partisan and that they will avoid affiliating themselves with any cause that is political.

In this respect, observers will also realise that in Singapore and elsewhere in the region, there is reluctance on the part of some governments to include independent political discussion groups, policy groups or others such as human rights groups into the category of civil society.

Groups such as these frequently adopt an adversarial stance against the establishment. As such, these groups seldom get recognition as members of civil society but are treated as political contenders. The Singapore case is especially telling, as there is a dearth of such independent groups since prevailing legislation do not encourage the formation of such organisations.

To further manage the emerging democratic force of civil society, political authorities in the region try to include within the ambit of civil society, groups and organisations that have direct links with them. Government-sponsored groups and organisation whose formations have been initiated and supported by the authorities in power, for instance, are now pushed forward as members of civil society.

In Indonesia, institutions such as Golkar and the military therefore continue to play an important role. In other countries such as Malaysia and Singapore organisations linked to ruling the political authorities that are involved in the provision of services and the generation of income are put forward as genuine social actors.

Some examples in Singapore would be the PAP kindergarten centres, the NTUC FairPrice Supermarket chain, NTUC Income, NTUC Comfort taxi services, the People's Association, the various grassroots organisations and direct service providers that are closely linked to the political authorities because of funding.

By including politically sponsored and linked groups into civil space, the push by some members of civil society to adopt a more reformist posture is immediately faced with a built-in counter objection by another set actors. In this way political authorities in the region stand to successfully dilute the space of civil society and exercise some measure of indirect control over some of its more progressive actors.

This then brings us to the principle issue raised in Singapore by commentators trying to clinically separate civil and political society.

In the classical Western definition, political philosopher John Locke defines political society as a community of people that have agreed to step out of the state of nature and symbolically hand over authority over themselves to a political system that regulates their behaviour.

However, in this community all individuals nevertheless maintain their right to engage the political system. If there is an abuse of power, or if the will of the people is not observed by those entrusted with the responsibility of government, then the authority over oneself can be revoked. This ensures that all citizens retain their right to political activity without being subjected to unreasonable constraints. It is in this broad sense that a political society is conceived.

Although in East and Southeast Asia, our political writings have not conceptualised political society in these terms. Nevertheless, the journey from a monarchical system, through the colonial experience to the present post independence situation shows that there has been precedence in the region for centralised political authority. The strategy of ruling forces in Asian history has been to disenfranchise political activity not sanctioned by the centre.

Nonetheless, political change is not unknown in the region. People in this part of the world have been able to rise above the constraints placed on political participation. From overthrowing tyrannical monarchs through armed rebellions to organising independence movements against the colonial masters, the region has shown that a political society where people participate widely without or in spite of constraints have been very much the spirit of the Asian tradition.

Conservative regimes in the region continue to tinker with the demand for greater political participation. This time by trying to de-link the democratic role from the other functions of civil society. A culmination of this can be seen in the attempt by local commentators to make an artificial distinction between civil and political society.

To side-step this de-linking exercise, we can re-postulate political society for contemporary times in the following way.

For a political society to exist, in which all citizens have a legitimate right to participate, what is needed is political space. This is an area of uninhibited articulation and organisation where any political authority using the structures of the state cannot arbitrarily control the political will of the people.

It is assumed that those using this space will be act in a responsible manner in keeping with social norms. Where such issues of responsibility are in question, than the lack of clarity in these issues can be subjected to the laws of the land. Here the due judicial process must be allowed to arbitrate on the matter without interference from the executive.

Habitually it is at this juncture that conservative governments in the region invoke the "values" argument. They question the consequence of allowing individuals and groups whose motive and character the executive cannot pre-judge.

This is an old argument frequently used to retard the political process but not without force for some. However, the recourse to this argument is increasing difficult to maintain as the aftermath of the Asian economic crisis makes the politics of participation difficult to ignore.

In sum, political society is more than political parties contesting for dominance for governmental power. It is a community that provides for political space not arbitrarily controlled by an executive. It allows for all its members to be politically and responsibly active, to participate at every level and to explore a variety of mechanisms. Towards this end, the civil and political rights of the members in this community are guaranteed and protected.

Which means, civil society can no longer be confined only to NGO representations or group actors. Individuals as free agents can also be private contributors to the process. Only when we recognise that the width and breath of political society as being larger than that of political party activity will civil society become meaningful.

James Gomez, a senior researcher at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in Singapore, is currently co-editing a volume on the Political Impact of the Asian Economic Crisis. He contributed this article to Singapore Window