Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Single-party state

I would like to join in this mediation case, partly because I'm from Singapore and partly because I was somehow involved in the initial discussion on the page talk page. I would like to be part of this case and bring this to a concensus. May I get involved in this case? Terence Ong 08:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You've made ONE comment in the dispute. But sure, if you want to be a part why not, the more the merrier. ;) --Regebro 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why this is here

Just as a note that I don't believe I should be a part of this RFM, although I agree with the need for one. My only involvement has been to offer information as a neutral mediator at MEDCAB, and later I agreed with Wikizach that due to prior ArbCom cases (Instantnood 2 and 3), the case is more suited for MEDCOM rather than MEDCAB. – Chacor 11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Commencing mediation

The discourse on the article's talkpage is rather long and complicated; I feel like I'd be going round and round by reading it. Therefore I'd like to ask for concise statements of the current situation from each party to be posted below. Please don't post comments, just statements. Thanks. —Xyrael / 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll start: Ultimately, I think the dispute is about the definition of "single-party system" and "dominant-party system". Basically, there are three types of systems:
  1. Systems where only one party is allowed to compete elections.
  2. Systems where more than one party is allowed to compete, but where the dominant party keeps power through fraud or similar unfair measures.
  3. Systems where more than one party is allowed to compete, and where a single party just happens to have majority support over a longer period of time even though elections largely follow democratic standards.
• Singapore is rather obviously in the middle of the three categories; the question is mostly whether to include #2 in "single-party" or in "dominant-party" or whether to split the classification into three parts all over Wikipedia into "single-party", "undemocratic dominant-party" and "democratic dominant-party". —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When analyzing Singapore's political system, many political scientists (such as Worthington, Ross (2002). Governance in Singapore. ISBN 0-7007-1474-X.) have commented that it is very difficult to categorize the system. It is unique in many ways, even though it is a very small geo-political entity. There are many factors suggested on why the PAP party have remained in power for decades, "undemocratic measures" is one of many contributing factors but it does not guarantee its stay in power. Those who are advocating democratic reform tend to describe Singapore as a "single-party" state, but more objective sources, such as the US Library of Congress (USLC) [1], describe it as a "dominant-party" state. For example, in the USLC essay, it says:

"... ... Singapore had what political scientists called a dominant party system or a hegemonic party system, similar to that of Japan or Mexico. There were regular elections and opposition parties and independent candidates contested the elections, but after the early 1960s the opposition had little chance of replacing the PAP, which regularly won 60 to 70 percent of the popular vote. ... The dominance of the PAP rested on popular support won by economic growth and improved standards of living combined with unhesitating repression of opposition leaders, who were regularly arrested on charges of being communist agents or sympathizers. .... In the mid-1980s, eighteen other political parties were registered, ... Much of the electoral support for opposition parties represented protest votes. Those voting for opposition candidates did not necessarily expect them to win or even wish to replace the PAP government. They used their votes to express displeasure with some or all PAP policies."

Therefore, it is more accurate to describe Singapore as having a dominant-party system. Thanks. --Vsion 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• This dispute is basically about whether it's OK to describe Singapores political system accurately or not. Singapore used to be in a list of "de facto single-party states". What this meant was described in the article, and Singapore matched that description. The dispute has been quite convoluted, since most parties making comments have not read the arguments and references, but just issued opinions, and the discussion has therefore largely been about such straw-men as saying that since Singapore is a dominant-party system, it could not be a de facto Single-party state, when in fact, all de facto single party states are dominant party systems per definition. The provided sources (from internationally renowned sources such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders) has been waved aside with unsubstantiated claims of these organisations being POV or biased or unreliable. Because of the repeated claims that Singapore is a dominant-party system, and not a single-party system, a compromise of sorts was tried today. (Also, it has been claimed that the whole "de facto single-party state" concept is original research). After discussion I moved the "de facto single-party state" list into "dominant-party system", and in that article clarified the difference between a democratic dominant party system and a non-democratic dominant party system. The three editors that agreed on this merge also agreed that it was important to make a distiction between democratic and non-democratic dominant-party systems, yet Huaiwei removed those distictions (I added them back, except for singapore, in a hope of calming the issue). I therefore suspect that no compromise can be found, and that this will just continue again, but now on Dominant-party system, thereby proving that this is not about the wording, but whether it should be allowed to be factual about Singapores politics or not. --Regebro 18:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye, that sounds about accurate. —Nightstallion (?) 12:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I will discuss issues of user conduct and the content dispute in seperate paragraphs.

Huaiwei and Instantnood have a long history of conflicts, and this dispute appears to have started as another Huaiwei-Instantnood conflict. When Regebro stepped into a hornet's nest by getting involved, it shifted from being a Huaiwei-Instantnood conflict to a full-blown content dispute. Huaiwei has made comments which could be interpreted as personal attacks (and I don't condone them). Some of Regebro's comments are, at worst, personal attacks on Singaporeans, and at best, incivil and assumption of bad faith.

In my opinion, Singapore is not a single-party state, but a dominant-party system. In our 2006 general election, contested by four political parties, the opposition won 2 seats, and 33% of the votes. Opposition parties are discriminated against, but not outright banned. The following paragraph in the lead section of dominant-party system seems to accurately describe the political situation in Singapore: "However, in some dominant-party systems, opposition parties are subject to varying degrees of official harassment and most often deal with rules and electoral systems (such as gerrymandering of electoral districts) designed to put them at a disadvantage or in some cases outright electoral fraud."

The sources Regebro provided tell us about various undemocratic means the ruling party uses to put opposition parties at a disadvantage, but they do not say that Singapore is a single-party state. To use these sources to conclude that Singapore is a single-party state constitutes synthesis of published material serving to advance a viewpoint, which is original research. As the paragraph I quoted mentions, in some dominant-party systems, the ruling party uses undemocratic means to put opposition parties at a disadvantage. Differentiating between such dominant-party systems and de-facto single-party states requires original research.

To his credit, Regebro proposed a compromise: removing the distinction between de-facto single-party states and dominant-party systems where the ruling party uses undemocratic means to put opposition parties at a disadvantage; merging the list of the former into dominant-party system, and identifying the latter in the list of dominant-party systems. I support this proposed compromise.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also support this compromise, strongly. —Nightstallion (?) 14:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)