Our world is comprised of a multitude of different governing systems and structures, but to what extent do they involve their people in the development and revisions of public policy? Do the people exercise any real degree of control over public policy? In my opinion, the extent of control that the people exercise over public policy varies depending on the structure of the governing system, as well as various other factors specific to the country. This is seen most evidently in the difference between authoritarian and democratic governments–in an authoritarian society, the people have limited control over public policy, whereas a democracy makes an effort to listen and include public opinion within policy.

In this essay, I will primarily focus on public policy in the context of a nation, and the ‘public policy’ will refer to a framework of laws, regulations, and actions that governments utilize to achieve the goals of the country. Moreover, the ‘exercising of people’s control’ refers to the active involvement of the general public in the mentioned framework regarding national law and regulations, and the government responding to the needs and demands of the public and taking action accordingly.

Authoritarianism and dictatorships

When we think of authoritarian societies, especially dictatorships, it is easy to assume that the citizens within that country have extremely limited control over public policy — of course, this is true in some nations such as North Korea, Afghanistan, the former USSR, and former Nazi Germany. In these societies, it was/is evident that citizens suer(ed) from oppression of basic freedoms and human rights, let alone control over public policy.

However, this only applies to absolute dictatorships or totalitarian regimes. Other forms of dictatorships, such as benevolent dictatorships, may not carry the same extreme oppressive nature. In benevolent dictatorships, the dictator offers a ‘softer’ approach to authoritarianism, rather than the more typical, harsh authoritarianism. Several historic leaders have been labelled as benevolent dictators, including Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. The former Prime Minister of Singapore rejected the idea that a country should be democratic for the mere sake of being democratic — he believed that simply having democracy does not guarantee a country’s growth. Instead, he suggested that a country should be evaluated by how well it serves citizens’ needs and improves the quality of their lives. Consequently, he claimed that having ‘too much’ democracy could lead to ‘undisciplined and disorderly conditions’, which would thus stunt the development and growth of a country. 

Lee has been criticised for such claims and thus his practices, including his restrictions against political opposition, his limitations on freedom of speech and mass media censorship, as well as his strongly centralized government, has been deemed authoritarian by some. However, unlike other historical dictatorships, Lee’s goals were positive and generally directed towards the productive growth of Singapore, especially right after becoming independent from Malaysia. His intentions were directed towards the collective good and welfare of Singapore as a whole, allowing Singapore to completely transform into an international hub, and to this day, most Singaporeans hold him in high regard. While Lee’s ideals did limit the participation of the people in public policy, he applied other strategies while he was in power to connect with the Singaporean people and won their genuine support and favour. For instance, between 13 September and 9 October 1961, he delivered a series of 12 radio talks, discussing and informing the Singaporean people of what was happening within the government, and the types of issues Singapore was facing at the time. These radio talks were broadcasted by Lee himself in Mandarin, English and Malay. Additionally, Cantonese, Hokkien, and Tamil translations of the talks were also later provided. By delivering these radio talks, Lee and the Singaporean government allowed citizens to feel informed of the government’s actions, which provided them with a sense of reassurance and involvement in the government’s decisions, even though they were not directly involved. Additionally, the fact that the radio talks were delivered in 6 languages promoted the inclusivity of all Singaporean citizens, no matter what language they spoke. The presence of Lee himself, who delivered 3 of these languages, united citizens amidst language barriers and allowed Lee to develop a feeling of intimacy and a healthy relationship between the people and the government. Essentially, though Lee Kuan Yew did not provide the Singaporean people control over public policy and is often considered authoritarian, he utilised his power to connect with the Singaporean people, to support and empower not only himself, but also the citizens of Singapore, and Singapore itself, catapulting it to its current success.

Though Lee Kuan Y ew is not the only example in history of a benevolent dictator, he is one of the best examples of one and proves that even if a country may not necessarily allow the people to exercise control over public policy, with a benevolent dictatorship, it can create the illusion of ‘control’ by approaching a dictatorship in a more intimate, positive and compassionate manner.

Democracy

Unlike authoritarianism, the very definition of democracy is for a country to be ‘ruled by the people’. Systems of democratic assemblies have existed since the beginning of human existence, but the first mention of the term democracy dates back to 430s BC ancient Greece, in Athens. In the Ancient Athenian democracy, any male citizen of Athens could participate in general democratic meetings of an assembly (ekklēsia). During these meetings, anyone could speak up and present their ideas, and citizens made decisions through voting by simply raising their hands. Because of this process, it was difficult for corruption to occur within the government. In this case, the people almost had full control of public policy, since the process for voting on relevant issues was quite simple, which meant the chance for corruption was quite low. Furthermore, because many of the people who were affiliated with the government were chosen randomly, there was likely a wide range of values and opinions within the government, allowing for a diverse and fair government body, allowing the general public in Ancient Athens to possess a considerable amount of control in lawmaking and public policy. This form of democracy is the most raw and traditional form of democracy, and it demonstrates the benefits that democracy can produce.In the present, most people consider democracy the governmental structure that most prominently allows and includes public opinion/input on the government’s decisions. However, how much power does the general public really have? Is democracy today truly democratic?

Case study on democracy: The United States

The United States of America has always capitalised on and promoted democracy, branding themselves as ‘the land of the free’, and advocating for the famous ‘American dream’. However, the U.S.’s famous democracy isn’t as perfect as they claim it to be. The way Congress is structured allows many, especially large corporations, to find loopholes in the system in order to execute actions that may otherwise be illegal. For example, the long terms that congressmen and senators possess (two and six years respectively) allow some, who have adequate connections, to form lasting relationships with these government officials, causing lobbying. Some could argue that because of this, the U.S. government is aristocratic and favours the rich over the poor. This is further caused by the U.S. government’s lack of robust oversight and strong accountability measures for corruption. This means that even though ‘the people’ in the U.S supposedly have an abundance of power over public policy, according to the values that the U.S advertises themselves as having, the systems are still somewhat aristocratic– the higher class, especially people affiliated with the government, have more power over public policy over the lower class.

The U.S. government favours companies that provide funding to the U.S. government or make significant contributions to the U.S.’s economic growth. This is demonstrated through the lobbying of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA). It is common knowledge that gun violence is a massive issue that gets increasingly severe every day — so why hasn’t the U.S. made any significant contributions towards combating this issue? One of the reasons for this is the substantial amount of funding through lobbying expenditures that the NRA provides the U.S. government with — in 2023, the NRA had about 2.31 million U.S. dollars in lobbying expenditures (Statista). This is especially concerning because, as I previously mentioned, the U.S. government has not made any significant decisions regarding gun laws and control, even though it is an extremely severe issue in the U.S., at the cost of tens of thousands of lives each year (Pew Research Center). This further proves that the way American democracy operates is deeply rooted in aristocracy and favours the higher class.

Mass media may have a significant impact on the people’s decisions over public policy, limiting them from forming their own true opinions, and thus their true degree of control over public policy. When a specific idea is widely promoted, people feel psychologically pressured to believe the same thing. This can be seen in action through the trust that American citizens have in specific news outlets — according to a poll conducted by YouGov and The Economist, the trust that Republicans have in Fox News is 34% higher than the trust that Democrats in Fox News, whereas the trust that republicans have in CNN is 55% lower than the trust that democrats have in CNN. This is caused by the evident bias that the aforementioned news outlets have towards one or the other political party. However, it is also evident that the trust that most Americans have in popular news outlets is very low — the most trusted news outlet, according to the same poll, is The Weather Channel, which does not usually comment on political issues. Moreover, according to PressGazette, of the top 5 most popular news outlets in the U.S (most visited news sites), 3 are outlets that often lean left (in order: USA Today, CNN, New York Times), 1 is neutral (Newsweek, but some may argue that it leans left), and 1 leans right (Fox News). This is based on metrics from AllSides. Because the majority of the top news outlets in the U.S. lean left, it may cause people to form opinions that lean left as well. Alternatively, it could also go the opposite way–because people like to hear things that they agree with, they tend to go to sources of information that would agree with them, so media only reinforce their pre-existing opinions. But even the media can not dictate the public ‘how’ to think, they are believed to have a significant impact on ‘what’ to think about (the so-called “agenda-setting effect” in media studies).

Hybrid Regimes

As you can see, both authoritarian and democratic regimes have their strengths and weaknesses. in today’s world, the number of hybrid regimes is increasing, blending both autocratic and democratic attributes.

Hybrid regimes often refer to democracies that encompass regular frauds in elections and thus do not have a free or just democracy. These countries often apply negative pressure on political opposition or exert media censorship — causing them to be named “flawed democracies” because the country should supposedly have democracy, but the democracy is not entirely free due to the aforementioned reasons.

Conclusion

In conclusion, authoritarian, democratic and hybrid regimes all encompass various extents of people’s power over public policy, and each of them has its strengths and weaknesses, based on the structure of the government. In short, authoritarian societies usually allow very limited to no control over public policy –but there are some ‘softer’ exceptions, such as Singapore’s benevolent dictatorship. On the contrary, democracy advertises itself as a system that provides the people with a substantial amount of control over public policy, but there are many issues within democracy when it is seen in practice. Therefore, the extent of control that people have over public policy varies in every country around the world.

References:

“About Congress.” U.S Capitol Visitor Center, www.visitthecapitol.gov/explore/about-congress. Accessed 8 Sept. 2024.

“A Bipartisan Plan to Combat Global Corruption.” Transparency International U.S, Transparency International, 17 Feb. 2021, us.transparency.org/news/a-bipartisan-plan-to-combat-global-corruption/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2024.

Cartwright, Mark. “Athenian Democracy.” World History, 3 Apr. 2018, www.worldhistory.org/Athenian_Democracy/. Accessed 1 Sept. 2024.

Gramlich, John. “What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, 26 Apr. 2023, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2024.

“Hybrid Regime.” European Center for Populism Studies, www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/hybrid-regime/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2024.

Hyman, Gerald. “Lee Kuan Y ew’s Enigma: Authoritarian Y et a Kind of Democrat.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 30 Mar. 2015, www.csis.org/analysis/lee-kuan-yews-enigma-authoritarian-yet-kind-democrat. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.

“Lee Kuan Yew delivers radio talks in the battle for merger.” National Library Board of Singapore, 2014, www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=f661e5e1-d5fa-4588-9360-e35fa457e98d. Accessed 6 Sept. 2024.

Root, Hilton L. “Three Asian Dictators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” George Mason University.

Sanders, Linley. “Trust in Media 2022: Where Americans get their news and who they trust for information.” YouGov, 5 Apr.2022, today.yougov.com/politics/articles/41957-trust-media-2022-where-americans-get-news-poll.

Schiavenza, Matt. “Lee Kuan Y ew Created The World’s Least-Hated Authoritarian State.” The New Republic, 24 Mar. 2015, newrepublic.com/article/121355/singapore-lee-kuan-yew-perfected-distinct-authoritarianism. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.

Stockman, Farah. “He Made His Country Rich, but Something Has Gone Wrong With the System.” The New York Times, 12 Apr.2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/opinion/international-world/singapore-autocracy-democracy.html. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.