Uncoupling Conceptual Understandings and Political Preferences: A Study of Democratic Attitudes among Singapore’s Highly Educated Young

Democracy is subject to constant and seemingly interminable contestation in academic and policy contexts, and yet, empirically and methodologically robust analysis of what the term means in practice for actual citizens has remained an area of relative lacuna. Admittedly, large-N surveys have attempted to address this research gap by examining attitudes to numerous components of democracy, but without the fine-grained detail required to overcome simply reproducing the focus on liberal procedural, Western precedent-based, top-down approaches to understanding such a complex and varied political system. This article proposes a methodological approach, based on the requirements of comparative political theory and research into how people view democracy. This allows us to explore political attitudes and the meaning of democracy with a bottom-up approach using the methods of repertory grid and in-depth interviews. Singapore is a particularly exciting case for comparative political science: although it has all the advantageous conditions that, according to classic modernization theory, promote the development of democracy, it is still not a democracy. 

To what extent will the conceptualization of democracy by citizens in a country like Singapore resemble theoretical definitions, and how suitable do they consider democracy to be for Singapore? What are their expectations for a good government or regime? This article examines what highly educated Singaporeans, ranging in age from their twenties to their forties, think about democracy. In doing so, the article also pursues the goal of comparing methods between repertory grid interviews and in-depth interviews in order to work out potential interfaces, and points of connection, between the two methods to allow for the most productive research outcomes. We find that, conceptually, these Singaporeans’ perceptions of democracy appeared very similar to what is usually discussed as electoral democracy in established literature. When evaluating the performance of a government or a regime, however, liberal ideas of freedom and fairness competed with more pragmatic approaches that reflect the principles of progress and success as well as community and performance-focused orientations. As a result, our respondents did not prioritize democratic practices as much as other aspects of governance like efficiency. Our findings on the influence of state ideology on highly educated young people in Singapore strengthen the arguments of political myth as an integration and legitimization strategy in autocratic regimes and democratizing strong states or regimes with a particularly pronounced ideological hegemony.