Lessons in Governing for Swapo From Singapore

WILLIAM GUMEDE

SINGAPORE’S PEOPLE’S Action Party (PAP), the country’s governing party, is arguably the most successful post-colonial independence party turned government. Started as a left-of-centre independence party, it offers valuable lessons for Swapo.

In one generation, PAP transformed Singapore from dirt-poor at independence (from Great Britain in 1965) to a highly developed economy.

At independence, Singapore had no mineral resources, no significant industries, and imported its energy, food and water. It was poorer than most African countries.

In 1965, its nominal GDP per capita was US$500. In 2015, GDP per capita rose to US$56 000 – similar levels to Germany. Singapore had caught up with industrial and former colonial powers. 

In contrast, within one generation, almost all African countries became significantly poorer, more corrupt, more ethnically divided, and more dysfunctional than at independence.  

PAP was similar to many African liberation and independence movements, such as Swapo, SA’s ANC and Algeria’s FLN: a typical broad left front, spanning trade unions, communists, populists, professionals, small business and traditionalists.

However, unlike many African independence movements which adopted Marxist-Leninism, African variants of socialism and communalism, democratic centralism, or state-led development, PAP pursued social democracy, pragmatic market-based policies, and partnered with business, including multinationals.

POLICY PRIORITIES

It adopted policies based on whether they produced results – and if they did not, rejected them – and not on dogma or belief in an absolute truth.

The party encouraged private sector-led growth, rather than state-led growth, unlike many African independence movements, which discouraged private sector-led growth, prioritising state-led growth.

PAP strongly pushed industrialisation as a way to foster growth and create jobs, rather than redistribution of existing or colonially inherited wealth. The state collaborated with business, predominantly foreign multinationals.

In contrast, African independence and liberation movements nationalised many local and foreign companies, or introduced indigenisation or empowerment programmes, where the state or local political capitalists close to governing parties got slices of local or foreign companies.

The PAP government established a social pact coordinated body, like the Dutch equivalent, to forge a consensus between organised labour, business, and the government on growth, industrialisation and multiracialism strategies. 

Importantly, business had equal power to that of labour, although PAP started as a party aligned to trade unions.

Trade unions were compelled to compromise short-term interests in favour of long-term industrialisation. For example, they had to agree to productivity targets – accepting lower wages and increases and not to strike – to foster an investor-friendly labour market.

African independence movements aligned to trade unions often give preference to labour allies above that of business. 

This results in alienating business and losing out on gaining its support along with its resources, ideas, and capacity for industrialisation programmes.

CORRUPTION, CADRES, AND COMPETENCE

PAP vigorously pursued a strategy of merit within both the party and the state. It introduced merit-based appointments to the public service, rather than cadre deployment, bringing large numbers of entrepreneurial-minded public servants into government.

Election to PAP’s leadership was largely on merit, but also included all ethnic groups, which lifted the best talent among its support base to the party’s top echelons. 

Parliamentary candidates were only selected after interviews, competency assessments and lifestyle audits.

The party changed outdated ideologies, retired incompetent leaders and fired the corrupt – despite their ‘struggle’ credentials. They brought in new leaders, many of whom were never part of the ‘struggle’, and in some cases were not even members of the party.

The party dealt firmly with corruption – jailing senior party and government leaders implicated in corruption, even if they were ‘struggle’ grandees, to show that liberation leaders are not above the law. 

No successful country development can take place amidst corruption, incompetence and lawlessness.

PAP was also determined to entrench the rule of law at independence and to ensure that everyone was equal before the law. In the first 30 days of gaining power in 1959, the PAP government broke up criminal gangs, mafia networks and illegal activities.

Once in power, many African independence movement governments often exempt party members and leaders from the rule of law, undermining the establishment of a culture of rule of law – crucial for industrialisation, growth and development.

EMBRACING ETHNICITY

Singapore is multi-ethnic and multilingual, and PAP went out of its way to represent all ethnic groups at “all levels of the state and in state institutions”. 

It adopted multiracialism, a respect for and equality of all ethnic groups and tolerance of differences, as one of its post-independence building blocks. 

The deliberate inclusion of all ethnic groups is a key ingredient of Singapore’s success. It unleashed the talent, ideas and energy of the widest number of people in the country in pursuit of prosperity.