Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T04:34:56.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bringing Ideology in: Differing Oppositional Challenges to Hegemony in Singapore and Malaysia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2015

Walid Jumblatt Abdullah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the nature of the main opposition parties to the incumbent hegemonic regimes in Malaysia and Singapore. I argue that the differing characters of these opposition parties should be considered. In Singapore, where there is no ideological challenge to the ruling party, I contend that even if the opposition takes over it will be the end of a hegemonic party but not hegemony. In Malaysia, the opposite is true. This article contributes to the literature on transition theory in two ways: (1) it recognizes the diversity of authoritarian regimes and enhances analyses of various authoritarian regimes by focusing on one type – hegemonic parties; and (2) it brings ideology into the reckoning by focusing on the nature of the opposition parties most likely to take over.

Keywords

democratizationhegemonytransitionSingaporeMalaysiaauthoritarian

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 483 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Walid Jumblatt Abdullah is a PhD student at the National University of Singapore and Kings College London. Contact email: walid.abdullah@kcl.ac.uk.

References

REFERENCES

Anuar, M.K. (2014), ‘Seeking Democracy in Malaysia: New Media, Traditional Media and the State’, in A.T. Kenyon, T. Marjoribanks and A. Whiting (eds), Democracy, Media and Law in Malaysia and Singapore: A Space for Speech (Abingdon: Routledge): 83–104.Google Scholar
Bajpai, R. and Brown, G.K. (2013), ‘From Ideas to Hegemony: Ideational Change and Affirmative Action Policy in Malaysia, 1955–2010’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 18(3): 257–280.Google Scholar
Bermeo, N. (1997), ‘Myths of Moderation: Confrontation and Conflict during Democratic Transitions’, Comparative Politics, 29(3): 305–322.Google Scholar
Bermeo, N. (2003), Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and the Breakdown of Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boo, S.L. (2010), ‘Promote “Ketuanan Rakyat”, Anwar Tells Pakatan Leaders’, The Malaysian Insider, 30 November 2010.Google Scholar
Boo, S.L. (2013), ‘Nurul Izzah: Needs-based Affirmative Action Can Calm Racial Sensitivities’, MalayMailOnline, 27 July 2013.Google Scholar
Boulanger, C.L. (1993), ‘Government and Press in Malaysia’, Journal of Asian and African Studies, 28(1–2): 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, M. and van de Walle, N. (1997), Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, J. (2007), Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Bunce, V.J. and Wolchik, S.L. (2010), ‘Defeating Dictators: Electoral Change and Stability in Authoritarian Regimes’, World Politics, 62(1): 43–86.Google Scholar
Carothers, T. (2002), ‘The End of the Transition Paradigm’, Journal of Democracy, 13(1): 5–21.Google Scholar
Case, W. (1996), ‘Can the “Halfway House” Stand? Semidemocracy and Elite Theory in Three Southeast Asian Countries’, Comparative Politics, 28(4): 437–464.Google Scholar
Case, W. (2004), ‘New Uncertainties for an Old-Pseudo Democracy: The Case of Malaysia’, Comparative Politics, 37(1): 83–104.Google Scholar
Chong, T. (2012), ‘A Return to Normal Politics: Singapore General Elections 2011’, Southeast Asian Affairs, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chua, B.H. (2003), ‘Multiculturalism in Singapore: An Instrument of Social Control’, Race and Class, 44(3): 58–77.Google Scholar
Da Cunha, D. (2012), Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future (Singapore: Straits Times Press).Google Scholar
Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2011), ‘Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristics Report’, updated 5 July, www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=117&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRXYzcVZjdz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09.Google Scholar
Fuller, T. ‘Anwar Vindicated in Defamation Case’, International Herald Tribune, 19 August 2005.Google Scholar
Gandhi, J. (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Geddes, B. (1999), ‘What Do we Know about Democratization after Twenty Years?’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1): 115–144.Google Scholar
Greene, K.F. (2007), Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Greene, K.F. (2010), ‘The Political Economy of Authoritarian Single-Party Dominance’, Comparative Political Studies, 43(7): 807–834.Google Scholar
Hadenius, A. and Teorell, J. (2007), ‘Pathways from Authoritarianism’, Journal of Democracy, 18(1): 143–157.Google Scholar
Horowitz, D.L. (1989), ‘Incentives and Behaviour in the Ethnic Politics of Sri Lanka and Malaysia’, Third World Quarterly, 11(4): 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jomo, K.S. (1990), ‘Whiter Malaysia’s New Economic Policy?’, Pacific Affairs, 63(4): 469–499.Google Scholar
Kaya, R. and Bernhard, M. (2013), ‘Are Elections Mechanisms of Authoritarian Stability or Democratization? Evidence from Postcommunist Eurasia’, Perspectives on Politics, 11(3): 734–752.Google Scholar
Kuhonta, E.M. (2011), The Institutional Imperative: The Politics of Equitable Development in Southeast Asia (Stanford: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
Leifer, M. (1969), ‘Politics and Constitutional Stability in Malaysia’, Parliamentary Affairs, 22: 202–209.Google Scholar
Levitsky, S. and Way, L.A. (2010), Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lindberg, S.I. (ed.) (2009), Democratization by Elections (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Linz, J. and Stepan, A. (1996), Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post Communist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magaloni, B. (2006), Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Mauzy, D.K. (1988), ‘Malaysia in 1987: Decline of “The Malay Way”’, Asian Survey, 28(2): 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, R.S. and Mauzy, D.K. (2002), Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Mutalib, H. (2002), ‘Constitutional-Electoral Reforms and Politics in Singapore’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 27(4): 659–672.Google Scholar
Mutalib, H. (2003), Parties and Politics: A Study of the Opposition Parties and PAP in Singapore (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic).Google Scholar
Mutalib, H. (2011), ‘The Singapore Minority Dilemma: Between Malay Persistence and State Relations’, Asian Survey, 51(6): 1156–1171.Google Scholar
Nesiah, D. (1997), Discrimination with Reason? The Policy of Reservations in the United States, India, and Malaysia (Delhi: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
O’Donnell, G. and Schmitter, P.C. (1986), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Ong, A. and Chan, R. (2013), ‘Low: Don’t Take By-election Result as Sign of Future Trend’, Asiaonenews, 27 January.Google Scholar
Ong, E. and Tim, M.H. (2014), ‘Singapore’s 2011 General Elections and Beyond: Beating the PAP at its Own Game’, Asian Survey, 54(4): 749–772.Google Scholar
Ortmann, S. (2011), ‘Singapore: Authoritarian but Newly Competitive’, Journal of Democracy, 22(4): 153–164.Google Scholar
Pakatan Rakyat (2013), ‘Manifesto Rakyat: Pakatan Harapan Rakyat’ (People’s Manifesto: Pakatan is the Hope for the People), election manifesto.Google Scholar
Reuter, O.J. and Gandhi, J. (2011), ‘Economic Performance and Elite Defection from Hegemonic Parties’, British Journal of Political Science, 41(1): 83–110.Google Scholar
Reynolds, A., Reilly, B. and Ellis, A. (2005), Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook (Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).Google Scholar
Rodan, G. (2009), ‘Accountability and Authoritarianism: Human Rights in Malaysia and Singapore’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 39(2): 180–203.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1990), ‘A Typology of Party Systems’, in P. Mair (ed.), The West European Party System (New York: Oxford University Press): 316–350.Google Scholar
Schedler, A. (2009), ‘Electoral Authoritarianism’, in T. Landman and N. Robinson (eds), The Sage Handbook of Comparative Politics (Los Angeles: Sage): 381–394.Google Scholar
Scheiner, E. (2006), Democracy Without Competition: Opposition Failure in a One-Party Dominant State (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Selolwane, O.D. (2002), ‘Monopoly Politikos: How Botswana’s Opposition Parties Have Helped Sustain One-Party Dominance’, African Sociological Review, 6(1): 68–90.Google Scholar
Siddique, S. and Suryadinata, L. (1981–2), ‘Bumiputra and Pribumi: Economic Nationalism (Indiginism) in Malaysia and Indonesia’, Pacific Affairs, 54(4): 662–687.Google Scholar
Straits Times (2014), ‘Gerald Giam: Risk Burden Too Heavy on the Public’, Straits Times, 18 January, www.straitstimes.com/singapore/gerald-giam-risk-burden-too-heavy-on-the-public.Google Scholar
Singapore Democratic Party (2011), ‘Multiculturalism, Not PAP’s Race-based Policies’, 5 February, http://yoursdp.org/news/multiculturalism_not_pap_s_race_based_policies/2011-02-05-2297.Google Scholar
Slater, D. (2012), ‘Strong-State Democratization in Malaysia and Singapore’, Journal of Democracy, 23(2): 19–33.Google Scholar
Snyder, R. and Mahoney, J. (1999), ‘The Missing Variable: Institutions and the Study of Regime Change’, Comparative Politics, 32(1): 103–122.Google Scholar
Solinger, D.J. (2001), ‘Ending One-Party Dominance: Korea, Taiwan and Mexico’, Journal of Democracy, 12(1): 30–42.Google Scholar
The Star (2013), ‘Kit Siang: Abdul Ghani Should Be in the Cabinet’, The Star, 10 May 2013.Google Scholar
Svolik, M.W. (2009), ‘Power Sharing and Leadership Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes’, American Journal of Political Science, 53(2): 477–494.Google Scholar
Tan, E.K. (2012), ‘Singapore: Transitioning to a “New Normal” in a Post-Lee Kuan Yew Era’, Southeast Asian Affairs, 265–282.Google Scholar
Tan, K.P. (2008), ‘Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore’, International Political Science Review, 29(1): 7–27.Google Scholar
Weiss, M.L. (2006), Protest and Possibilities: Civil Society and Coalitions for Political Change in Malaysia (Stanford: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
Weiss, M.L. (2013), ‘Malaysia’s 13th General Elections: Same Result, Different Outcome’, Asian Survey, 54(4): 1135–1158.Google Scholar
Wong, B. and Huang, X. (2010), ‘Political Legitimacy in Singapore’, Politics and Policy, 38(3): 523–543.Google Scholar
Woolcock, J.A. (1985), ‘Politics, Ideology and Hegemony in Gramsci’s Theory’, Social and Economic Studies, 34(3): 199–210.Google Scholar
Workers’ Party (2011), ‘MND – Managing Agents’, parliamentary speech on Motion on Inclusive Growth, 3 March, http://v1.wp.sg/category/parliamentary-speech/page/40/.Google Scholar