Charlatans and technocrats

Chichikov, Gogol's original charlatan (Source: here)

One of the most fundamental questions we ought to be asking ourselves - and each other - is how we can better get our politicians to act in the public interest. I think about this question every day. I read a lot on the subject. I challenge my own ideas in order to advance them. I share them with you in the hope that you too will think along the same lines. After all, most of us share the same problem; we live in countries with shambolic political accountability.

_____

Over past 24 hours, I read two insightful if contrasting accounts of political accountability, one pertaining to the United States, the other to Singapore. It is shocking how different the governments in these two countries are, so I naturally asked myself how the differences manifest themselves and whether true representative government - the type you have in Singapore - really makes a difference compared to American-style interest-group governance. What follows are my conclusions.

In his brief blog post titled Bicentennial Memories, Paul Krugman compared political accountability in the United States in 1976 with the situation prevailing today. In 1976, Nixon was famously removed from office with backing of both Democrats and Republicans. Today, Trump carries out crimes far greater than Nixon's, yet he retains the full backing of Congress Republicans, while the mainstream Democrats are mostly quiet like little mice.

Political accountability in the United States appears to be dead.

Krugman argues, correctly in my view, that the Watergate Scandal, though traumatic at the time, was ultimately a good thing, because:

" Reporters were heroes and the media did its job. So did Congress. Nobody would call Gerald Ford a great president, but he was clearly a decent human being. The powerful were held accountable. America, it seemed, still retained its soul."

Not anymore. When a political system is flawed, sooner or later some power-hungry, self-serving, morally bankrupt crook will find a way to make the entire government apparatus work for him instead of the people. The state has been captured by Trump and the US political system has proven itself incapable of restraining a blatantly criminal Executive.

_____

The piece on Singapore was far more up-lifting. The private report I read describes Singapore's introduction of digital public infrastructure over the last two decades. As I read the account, I genuinely struggled to think of a better example of a government, whose policies are designed with the sole objective of serving the public interest.

Most people are already aware of Singapore’s excellent physical infrastructure - highways with efficient electronic road pricing, clean and punctual public transport, a comprehensive sewage system, an efficient electricity grid, honest and effective policing, an incorruptible judiciary & prison system, well-functioning air- and sea-ports, a great airline, impressive defensive capabilities, and very high-quality public services, including healthcare, education and pensions.

Recently, however, Singapore has complemented its already excellent physical infrastructure with an equally impressive digital infrastructure. Today, 97% of Singaporeans access public services via the digital system. In testament to the quality and usefulness of the system, it is also used universally by Singapore's private sector. In other words, it is genuine infrastructure, meaning it is used every day by all members of society just like, say, the road network. It is the fundamental framework upon which all members of society can build and advance their digital lives.

One of the core features of the system is that it focuses on services that are useful for everyone all the time, such as easy and efficient means for people and businesses to prove their identify and share information in complete confidence.

It is difficult to overstate how important this is. Western democracies struggle with identify theft and other types of on-line impersonation crimes. Not so Singapore. Singapore's Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) assigned a unique, authenticated identity number to every resident accessible through the user-friendly Singpass interface, i.e. an app. Singpass then invited residents to submit their personal data for authentication, such as address, income, or employment status. Once authenticated, these data can be used again and again securely in transactions with third parties. Singaporeans can have the means to present verified digital proof of their identity—such as driving licences or birth certificates—directly from their devices without the involvement of paperwork or intermediaries.

Singpass put an end to cumbersome processes, such as sending utility bills as proof of address or submitting copies of passports when applying for permits, buying goods & services online, or entering into contracts. Now Singaporeans can simply share their pre-authenticated data directly with each other through Singpass, safe in the knowledge that the data is not fraudelent. The system has proven so useful, reliable, and cost effective that everyone uses it, with huge benefits in terms of efficiency, ease of transactions, trust, and reduction in fraud-related crime.

_____

Singpass is just one facet of a much larger system, but all its applications are similarly user-friendly, reflecting the government's single-minded focus on service delivery. It stands in sharp contrast with the United States, where the government has been hijacked by a small, corrupt, commercial elite and where members of Congress almost exclusively represent special interests.

With the passage of time, these differences between on one hand a country, which addresses the public’s problems, and on the other a country, which ignores them in order to satisfy special interests instead becomes very significant. To see how, compare US and Singaporean living standards in 1950 and 2025.

In 1950, US nominal GDP per capita was roughly USD 2,000, while Singapore's nominal GDP per capita was USD 500. By 2025, US nominal GDP per capita had increased to roughly USD 90,000, but Singapore's nominal GDP per capita had surged to USD 100,000. In other words, over the span of just one lifetime, Singaporeans had enjoyed a 200-fold improvement in their nominal Dollar income compared to just the far more modest 45-fold improvement in American nominal Dollar income.

Defenders of the United States will object that comparisons with Singapore is unfair, because Singapore is a ‘special case’. I disagree. Singapore got to where it is today by means that can be replicated anywhere. It worked hard, focused on reforms, and made a deliberate choicedue - inspired by to its visionary leader, Lee Kuan Yew, to make excellence in public service the defining element of the administration.

Contrast that with Western economies, where we regard our system of politics as an immutable pillar. We seem to have forgotten that good governance requires constant adjustment and fine-tuning. Our democracies have barely changed since they were first introduced hundreds of years ago and by now most are in dire need of an overhaul.

Like Singapore, we must subject our governance systems to active and continuous scrutiny and, where needed, change. The single most important thing that needs to change - for a benign cycle of reforms to take hold - is the incentive system for politicians. Currently, our political incentive systems give far too much leeway to elected officials to cheat, lie, hoodwink, and cajole voters with near-impunity. We only hold our elected leaders to account at the ballot box once every four or five years, which is simply not enough to prevent massive moral hazard.

_____

At the end of the day, quality of governance boils down to a simple question: does the government act in the public interest or does it serve narrow interest groups? Interest groups do not drive public service delivery in Singapore; they do in the US.

To move forward, we need to get back to the old idea that the purpose government is to deliver services to the general public to as to enable the maximum number of people to realise their full potential. Why else bother to tax people and firms; why else bother to have public services at all?

My favourite proposal for changing political incentives is to make election commitments legally binding - complete with banker-style bonuses for politicians, who deliver what they promise, and fines/prison for those who take the piss. Election commitments should be written on ballot papers that have status of legally binding contracts. Thus, when voters give politicians their cross on the ballot paper, they can expect their trust to be honoured - or else seek legal redress.

 _____

A system with strong incentives for politicians to deliver would give rise to an entirely new type of politics in Western democracies. For one, politics would become far more boring than it is today, but in return we actually get what we vote for. Politicians would be motivated by large bonuses and moral satisfaction, not by power per se or having their egos massaged. Politics would be the opposite of today’s politics with its abundance of entertainment, poor services, moral corruption, and abuse of power.

The politicians themselves would also be a very different from today’s charlatans. Legally binding election commitments would appeal to highly capable professionals and excellent managers. Politicians would have incentives to enter into pre-election coalitions rather than sorting things out after votes have already been cast. The most successful politicians would be those, who solve problems rather than snake-oil merchants, who cherry-pick issues to maximise their own chances of re-election.

The new politics would also be merciless on charlatans, punishing their audacity to lie, cheat, and waste the public's resources, trust, and time. It would not take many election cycles for populists, frauds, impostors, fakes, quacks, and mountebanks to disappear from politics altogether.

The good news is therefore that that it within our powers to make our public sectors a lot less like the United States and a lot more like Singapore, to make our democracies a force for the common good. The bad news is that change will only come from the grassroots up, because none of the current crop of politicians have the slightest interest in reforming a political system that allows them to get away with murder.

The End