What makes good politics?

"Good Politics" is an oxymoron.

But first let's hear what WP's Low Thia Khiang proposes as "good politics" (From ST 28 Jan 2016, "WP chief Low Thia Khiang: Good politics not just good policy and lack of gridlock"):

One, politics should be "all-inclusive", so that national interest can be agreed upon by consensus instead of being "monopolised by the ruling party".
"The Government should recognise that there are many ongoing and independent national conversations and should allow for differences in opinions to flourish without marking these conversations as disloyal and divisive," he said.
Two, those with "narrow political interests" should be encouraged to engage in dialogue and such discussions should be seen as "an educational process for Singaporeans to learn and to discern what is politics for the collective good of the nation and society".
Three, Singaporeans must be trusted to be "independent, rational and wise social actors" who can build up institutions not affiliated with the Government.
For instance, universities here were "tightly controlled for fear of their political influence", but have achieved "world-class status" after their autonomy was protected.
Academics can criticise the Government and have even joined alternative political parties but "our political system has not been destabilised as a result".
Finally, politics cannot be defined just by good policies and the absence of gridlock.
"Excessive fears of political gridlock" will lead Singapore to depend on just one political party, "waiting for it to rot to the point of no return before any alternative party can be formed to take its place".

If you agree with Low, that the above are the basis of good politics, or you agree with the list and would add to it, that is fine. Everyone should have an opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

And if you like a good bedtime story, you should probably stop reading here.

Because, while Low is a consummate politician (he has lasted almost a quarter of a century as an opposition MP), logic is not his strong suit.

Or maybe it is, but in politics, logic gets defenestrated early on.

Firstly, what is politics? You can Google for your favourite definition of politics, but this blog has been a little too academic, so let's do this differently.

What is our lay person's understanding of "politics"? When we say someone is "playing politics", what do we mean?

In the office or any social setting, "playing politics" can be roughly translated as someone is manipulating or staging facts, incidents, or events to raise his/her social status/ influence/power. Does that sound like what you understand by "politics"?

Does that definition or understanding extend to the realm of... politics? That is when we say someone is doing something for political reasons, or one's motivation is political, is our understanding that the person chooses to do or not do certain things because it affects his social status, standing, reputation, which in turn affects his ability to influence or have influence over a certain constituency?

So... politics is about gaining power or influence? Would you agree with this working definition or understanding of "politics"?

Which means that most (if not all) of the proposals by Low makes little sense.

How can "politics" be "all inclusive"? Low defines "all inclusive" to mean consensus on National Interests. How do we encourage those with "narrow political interests" to engage in dialogue?

Let me just point out that WP had chosen to ignore any attempts to build consensus with the other opposition parties during the "horse-trading" talks prior to Nomination Day of GE2015. And this was just for the simple objective of avoiding 3-corner fights in the GE, not complicated policy, high principles, or national interests. Or if national interest would be served by "opposition unity" (as non-WP parties defined it), the "narrow political interest" of the WP was not interested in dialogue. Let alone consensus.

Of course, Low and the WP might disagree that "opposition unity" is or was a "national interest". And therein lies the first and most insurmountable problem - getting consensus on what is "national interests".

In any case, if our simple understanding of "politics" is, doing what will improve one's status, power and influence, then does it help for ALL parties to gain power and influence to the same degree? At the same rate?

If Parties A, B and C have political influence of 5 points each (on some theoretical measure), does "inclusive politics" mean that all three parties political influence are raise to 8 points each? Does that help?

Of if their political influence (or power) are 3, 6, and 8 points, subsequently, all of them have their influence raised by 2 points to 5, 8, and 10 points. Does that help?

Is our instinctive understanding of politics, that it is a zero sum game? Where one's influence is relative to others. So any given political party would be happy if their influence goes up, only if the others do not rise as fast, or stay static, or even fall. Or they may even be happy if their influence does not rise, if all other parties lose political influence or power.

If you agree that Low's specification for good politics seems irrelevant or inapplicable, then you have reached the same conclusion as I have. Or something similar.

Low was NOT talking about politics. At least not as I understand it. And not as defined earlier. And not as we generally understand "politics".

But that's ok. One of the skills of human interaction is the ability to listen and hear what the speaker intends to say, rather than what he actually says.

His reference to "good policies" and "lack of gridlock" - which are the ruling party's words - as well as his own reference to "national interests", "collective good of nation and society", etc, seems to refer to governance and government.

And so his question is, or appears to be, or should be, what makes good government?

Here is another working definition of politics - "Politics is the process of choosing a government".

However, often the process is mistaken for the product.

Politics is not Government or governance, and Governing/governance/government is not politics, although governing often is political. 

The preceding sentence (in bold) is the crux of this post. If you do not understand that, please proceed with caution.

If you do understand that, then read on, and if you disagree, you can post a comment. If you DON'T understand it and you think you DON'T AGREE with it, I regret to inform you that you cannot disagree with that which you do not understand.

Confusion over politics and government is rife.

Heck, even Winston Churchill got it wrong, when he said, "Democracy is the worst form of government". Granted, he was speaking to be understood. whereas here, I am writing rather pedantically. Or to be generous, more precisely.

To be precise,

Democracy is NOT a form of government. Well, one form of democracy is a form of government.
That would be DIRECT democracy. Where every time there is a decision to be made, there is a referendum, a vote. And EVERYBODY votes on the issue.

All other forms of democracy are simply means of CHOOSING a government. Choosing the representatives of the people to form the government.

What Churchill meant was that "democracy is the worst way to choose a government..." except for every other way that have been tried.

In an interview (for the book "Hard Truths"), Lee was asked, "Is there any virtue at all in democracy, then?"

"Only one," he replied: "It allows governments to be thrown out without violence."

Which may have been what Churchill meant.

And that is the sole value and only purpose of democracy - the peaceful, orderly, non-violent election of (or throwing out of) a government.

Everything else you think Democracy is, are embellishments and aspirations hung (hopefully) on the tree of democracy.

But while democracy (or the democratic process) allows for the peaceful, non-violent change of government, it unfortunately does not guarantee that the government so elected is capable, competent, qualified, honest, or even the best one for the job.

Because democracy is basically a popularity contest.

"... the abilities necessary for the job may not be the ability that wins you that job. Political candidates campaign on popularity, and appeal. But having won the office, their ability to perform the task has little to do with their popularity, or their appeal."

And the fundamental problem is that within democracy are the Seeds of Populism. 

When what will win you the election is your popularity, then you must do what is popular in order to be elected.

And then Low's assertion that "politics should be all-inclusive" suddenly has sinister or at least amoral overtones. Or at least the hint of populism. 

What makes good politics? 

"Good politics" is an oxymoron. The purpose of politics is to gain influence and power. It is a zero sum game. There are winners, only because there are losers. You are seen as good, only because you can make your opponents look bad. Or incompetent. Or ill-informed. 

The debate on the NCMP scheme and whether WP could nominate another NCMP is full of politics. It is full of WP trying to make themselves out to be the good guys and the PAP the bad guys. And the PAP tries to to the exact same and opposite thing.

How can one make that process better?

How can the process be made "all inclusive"? How can consensus be reached? How can the ruling party be restrained from "monopolising" the process?

And therein lies the second problem of the proposal. How can the ruling party concede its interests and the result be "all-inclusive"?

Low and the WP reminds me of my niece when she was a pre-schooler. Her mother taught her to share. Her concept of sharing was for her siblings to give her what she wants. So she would grab at the toy or book or whatever, and try to pry it from the hands of her siblings, all the while shouting, "share! share! share!"

WP is doing the same, while shouting, "consensus! consensus! consensus!"

Their idea of consensus is, why don't you come around to my point of view.

The point is, political parties are different because they have different world views, different perspectives, different solutions, different values. How can a Liberal and a Conservative come to a consensus? (Edit: There can be consensus on policy, but not on principles. That is, the Liberal and the Conservative may agree to do the SAME thing but for different reasons. This is not ALWAYS possible.)

Political battles are a battle of wills, values, philosophy, and ideals for the hearts and minds of the voters. Democracy is about the people choosing the candidates/parties that they believe can bring about the vision they have for the nation (and which the people want).

If the WP think that the PAP has an obligation to make things easy for them, they really should just quit politics.