Search results

Outside the US and Europe, to establish a good government requires more than Western-style democracy. Adopting universal suffrage fully from the Western model is no longer a panacea to reach the ultimate goal of good governance in the East, i.e., to keep promoting socio-economic renovation can be noted as a prerequisite to have further meaningful political advancement in an Asian polity. The purpose of this paper is to explain how to establish a good but authoritarian government in the East.

Given the good of comparative historical analysis, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and Deng Xiaoping in China are selected as both cases for “method of agreement.” Further including “argument based on the contrary” to form a context for macro-historical analysis, this paper outlines two characteristics of the duo’s authoritarian leadership, namely, Ideologies and Policy-making; and Political Modernization, and hence provides a more balanced reevaluation of their governance.

Apart from noting how these two Asian giants more or less contributed to their good but authoritarian governments for long in the twentieth century, such a word of authoritarianism to the duo was quite positive to help legitimize their governance, which was far different from many negative views of the Western world.

As theories put forward by Western academics could not entirely justify modernization among Asian societies in the twentieth century, this paper attempts to answer one question: Does the meaning of authoritarianism remain unchanged in the discourse of the East and the West?

Collective industrial relations are crumbling. Alternatives include employee involvement and authoritarian forms of workplace governance. Uses evidence from the third workplace industrial relations survey to analyse associations between these different types of governance and workplace performance.

This research is concerned with youth activism in Singapore historically and the importance of legitimacy for understanding the further development of youth activism and Singapore’s democratization process. It takes into account issues pertaining to good governance, economic performance and democratic participation (legitimacy). The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The research adopts a historical approach, qualitative in nature with some quantitative analysis based on documentary research, press reports and content analysis.

Historically youth activism was vibrant and dynamic in the fight for independence and against inequality and injustice during the colonial era in Singapore. Under Lee Kuan Yew’s rule, the scope and boundary of democratic participation (legitimacy) were delimited and controlled by the state. State-contained or controlled participation has replaced contentious politics. In the Singapore General Election in 2011, the younger generation of Singapore electorate, who are better educated and well-travelled, however, proved themselves to be rational and pragmatic when they exercised their rights to reject polices detrimental to their socio-economic well-beings as well as to the inclusiveness of society. The People’s Action Party (PAP) had the lowest vote share (60 per cent) in history. Since then the PAP government had stepped up its efforts in improving welfare gains of the citizens as well as managing public discontents with more effective policies. The PAP victory in the Singapore election (GE 2015), however, showed that among other reasons, welfare gains and good governance helped in salvaging the electoral legitimacy vis-à-vis the political legitimacy of the PAP government. However, the PAP government’s continual harsh treatment of critics, young and old, means that to achieve democratic legitimacy, it has to break through the shackles of authoritarian leadership style and elite governance, which have led to the regime’s failure to face up to the reality of an emerging civic participatory culture in the Singapore contexts.

Legitimacy is an important concept. To date there is no systematic application of this concept to the study of Singapore electoral politics. This paper employs Bruce Gilley’s determinants of legitimacy – democratic legitimacy, welfare gains and good governance – to explicate the basis of the PAP’s regime legitimacy, the contradictions inherent in state-contained participation and political representation that delimited and undermined the nature, scope and boundary of democratic legitimacy.

The import of the idea of “governance” into the Thai polity has resulted in several competing interpretations. The body of knowledge on governance in Thailand is not yet well developed. Chaos and contradictions are characteristics of the field of study. First, the author explains the six interpretations of governance: the new democracy or democratic governance, good governance, the efficiency perspective, the Ten Guiding Principles for the King, the Thaksin system, and the ethical issue interpretation. Second, the author discusses the four reform consequences arisen from the import of governance: the difficulty in determining which is the correct prototype of governance, the problem from cloning deformed hybrids, the confrontation among competing hybrids, and the appropriate level of analysis for the concept of governance.

The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought about a panoply of institutional challenges both domestically and in the international arena. Classical constitutional theory thereby underwent a reinvention by the executive for the sake of speedy policy action and to the detriment of institutional control while favouring authoritarian forms of governance. This paper concerns itself with institutional responses to such developments, placing emphasis on the role of the judiciary and people*s in contesting emergency decrees and other executive orders, especially where fundamental rights are infringed upon. The paper aims to explore the difficulties arising with exerting absolute executive powers during the health crisis, the respective role assumed by constitutional courts and the impact of the new governance paradigm on forms of public contestation, also as a means of quasi institutional control.

Indeed, the right to health may be translated into political discourse and become foundational to security and public interest paradigms. This may result in a shrinking public space given the constraints to the freedom of movement. In the name of public safety, the (collective) right to assembly, expression and protest have been submitted to major limitations in that regard.

Ultimately, this re-opens debates on the meaning of absolute rights and contextualities of derogations, as well as the reconcilability of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. It also exposes social inequalities, social justice dimensions and vulnerabilities, often exacerbated by the health crisis; migrant rights demonstrably face particularly severe and intersectional forms of violations.

Particular values lie with the interdisciplinary approach embraced in this paper; the authors draw on a variety of social sciences disciplines to shed light on this very current issue. Both theoretical and empirical methods are used and combined here, making sense of the underlying logic of virus governance and its impacts on fundamental rights.

The chapter attempts to evaluate the utility of applying multi-level governance outside of the EU, and also outside of the group of democratic states, to states that have defied the third wave of democratization and that are characterized by a so-called new authoritarianism. The case is the People’s Republic of China, and the focus falls on policy-making and implementation in the field of hydropower with special attention to the issue area of environmental protection.

The chapter draws on the notion of scales and indigenous Chinese governance concepts and brings these into a conversation with the concept of multi-level governance. Case studies on hydropower decision-making in China contribute empirical data in order to investigate the utility of multi-level governance in the Chinese governance context.

The chapter argues that if multi-level governance is to have utility in other cultural contexts it needs to move away from a consideration of pre-given scales as locus of authority and consider indigenous governance concepts and notions of scale, and it crucially needs to map power relationships in the making and implementation of policies in order to reach analytical depth.

The case of China shows that authoritarian regimes can be analysed in terms of multiple levels as authoritarianism no longer automatically implies strict top-down entities. Instead, autocracies can be highly fragmented and subject to complex decision-making processes that can arise during processes of administrative reform. This can lead to vibrant and reflexive systems of governance that exhibit adaptive skills necessary to ensure regime survival amidst a continuously diversifying society and changing external circumstances. As a consequence, a research programme looking at the new authoritarianism from a multi-level governance perspective has the capacity to uncover and describe new forms of governance, by bringing the concept into a conversation with indigenous governance concepts.

In China, informal networks between the energy bureaucracy and hydropower developers determine the hydropower decision-making process. This is particularly detrimental at a time when the Chinese government emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and social stability. Informal networks in which key government agencies are involved actively thwart the attempt of creating reliable institutions and more transparent and accountable processes of decision-making within the authoritarian governance framework.

The findings show the dominance of informal networks versus the formal decision-making process. This sidelines the environmental bureaucracy and fails to fully realize the importance of public input into the decision-making process as one potential element of institutionalized conflict resolution.

The chapter builds on existing multi-level governance approaches and fuses them with notions of scales and indigenous Chinese governance concepts in order to enable the applicability of the concept of multi-level governance outside of its area of origin. This advances the explanatory depth and theoretical reach of multi-level governance.

The purpose of this paper is to figure out how authoritarian regimes conduct crisis management through application of technology, institutions and people.

By means of a literature review, this paper briefly reviews the digital governance of authoritarianism and its approach in crisis management. Then, a case study with empirical analysis is conducted to explain how an authoritarian regime would perceive and manage crises in the digital era.

China’s response towards COVID-19 was mainly based on digitalised grid management. Government’s perception of the crisis directly influences directions of institutions, while technology is developed, applied and iterated with the needs of institutions, rather than the public interests. And for the general public, the level of trust in the government directly affects the acceptance of technology.

Previous studies on crisis management of authoritarian governments in the digital era have mostly been conducted from a techno-ethical perspective. However, this paper verifies that the use of technology in crisis management requires involvement of institutions and public.

The aim of this paper is to test and explore the hypothesis global ruling power, as well as review the six approaches featured in the special edition on global governance/ruling power.

Anthropological and historical records are presented as support for the emergence of ruling power in society; moreover, evidence of global ruling governance/power is reviewed in the six papers featured in the special edition.

Alternatives for global governance are reviewed in two papers, while four papers present evidence in support of the thesis of the emergence of a transnational ruling power/class.

Because global ruling power exists informally and surreptitiously, the exact mechanisms of control are difficult to delineate, especially due to the fact that the Powers that Be spend much effort to block research into this area; however, this special edition opens up a promising area for new research efforts into global ruling power and the potential for global democracy.

Practical implications, although minimal in the short-term, increase as awareness grows, and policy alternatives are considered for the transition to a long-term, democratic global future.

Once social consciousness grows about the non-democratic, authoritarian nature of global ruling power/elite, the more the momentum will grow for reforms in the direction of global democracy – towards a more sustainable and equitable global system, politically, economically and ecologically.

This paper represents a relatively new area for interdisciplinary research into global futures. Futurists, political scientists and sociologists should find it valuable.