Measuring legitimacy through the percentage of votes

7 March 1996

The forthcoming General Elections have prompted a number of 
articles speculating on the PAP's share of the vote this time. I 
refer particularly to Warren Fernandez's piece "Flirting with the 
vote can bring unintended results", STWE, 2 March 1996. Mr 
Fernandez pointed out that a further reduction in the number of 
votes cast for the PAP may well bolster the hardliners in the 
party, thereby, presumably, reversing the more open and 
consultative style of the present Prime Minister.

Mr Fernandez is right in highlighting the possible consequences 
of voting for the opposition despite wanting a PAP-led 
government. However, he is wrong to imply that voters bear all 
the responsibility for the outcome. That is only half the story. 
The other half is that of a political party that still hankers after its 
glory days, when it regularly attracted more than eighty percent 
of the vote. An intriguing analogy could perhaps be drawn from 
the recent debate about graciousness. It is postulated that the 
low level of social graciousness in Singapore is the result of 
Singaporeans failing to cultivate behavioural patterns that match 
Singapore's rapid development from a third-world colony into a 
country with first-world infrastructure. This picture is strikingly 
similar to that of a political party that does not seem to realise 
that political norms extant during Singapore's early years as an 
independent state may not be appropriate now. It is a paradox 
that voters, in desiring to have a more diverse and balanced 
Parliament, appear to be more politically mature than politicians 
who apparently still expect deference and who are piqued by 
"ingratitude".

Political parties are naturally not keen to see their share of the 
vote fall. However, to go beyond this and specifically link 
political legitimacy to huge majorities is as unpragmatic as it is 
unnecessary. It is unpragmatic because Singapore's positive 
development into a more confident and mature polity suggests 
that huge majorities are probably unrealizable hence. And it is 
unneccessary because a democratically elected government, so 
long as it attends to the needs of the people equitably, is 
legitimate. The concept of some validating percentage (what 
would you have: 60, 70, or 80 percent?) conferring some so-
called mandate is a fiction that is best discarded. By the rules of 
the game, any party that wins enough votes to form the 
government has the right to govern.

Measuring legitimacy through the percentage of votes garnered 
locks the PAP into the false view that greater openness and 
more consultations lead to a falling share of the vote. It is 
entirely possible that, had there not been a relaxing of the 
Government's grip on society, the PAP would have seen its 
share of the vote fall even more drastically.

Therefore, a rising share of the vote that is obtained through a 
reverse course to the more rigid controls of the past does not 
confer extra legitimacy. Instead, such a reaction is likely to 
trigger a vicious circle of suppressed resentment finally 
expressible only through the ballot box. This is surely 
undesirable. Yet, so long as the outdated view linking high 
percentages to legitimacy reigns, it is a highly probable 
outcome. One only hopes that the spiral will be broken by 
politicians who are sufficiently perceptive to realise that the 
political milieu has changed, and so adapt accordingly, and 
gracefully.