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 to get 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. The truth is that most of us share the same problem; we live in countries with shambolic political accountability.

_____

Over the course of the past 24 hours, I read two insightful and contrasting accounts of political accountability, one pertaining to the United States, the other about Singapore.

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 that are far worse than Nixon's, yet he retains the full backing of Congress Republicans, while Democrats are mostly quiet like little mice.

Political accountability in the United States is dead.

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

" ... an affirmation of the American spirit. 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. This is happening under Trump and the US political system is proving itself incapable of restraining a blatantly criminal Executive.

_____

The piece on Singapore was more up-lifting. It was a private report, which 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 country, where policies are designed with the sole aim of serving the public interest.

Most people know that Singapore has excellent physical infrastructure - great highways with efficient electronic road pricing, a clean and punctual metro and bus system, comprehensive sewage systems, an efficient electricity grid, honest and effective policing, an incorruptible judiciary & prison system, well-functioning air- and sea-ports, a great airline, an impressive defence capability, and very high-quality public services, including healthcare, education and pensions.

Recently, however, Singapore complemented its already excellent physical infrastructure with equally impressive digital infrastructure. Today, 97% of Singaporeans access public services via the digital system. In testament to its quality and usefulness, the system is also used universally by Singapore's private sector, exactly that same way the private sector uses Singapore's physical infrastructure every day. In other words, Singapore has managed to create a fundamental frameworks upon which all members of society can continue to build and advance.

From the outset, the Singaporean government prioritised services that are used by everyone all the time. One of the top priorities was therefore to make it far easier and efficient to prove identify and share information with others in complete confidence.

It is difficult to overstate how important this is. Remember how much Western democracies struggle with identify theft and other types of on-line impersonation crimes? Not so Singapore. Singapore's Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) assigned every resident a unique, authenticated identity number 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 then be used again and again in secure transactions with third parties. Singpass enables Singaporeans 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.

Most importantly of all, Singpass puts an end to the cumbersome processes of, say, sending utility bills as proof of address or copies of the passports to apply for permits, buy goods & services, or enter into contracts. Singaporeans simply share their pre-authenticated data with each other through Singpass. 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 but one example, but Singapore's digital public infrastructure spans wide and all its applications are similarly user-friendly. It epitomises the government's single-minded focus on service delivery to the general public and stands in sharp contrast with the United States, where the government has been hijacked by a small, corrupt, commercial elite.  

With the passage of time, these differences become very significant. Compare, for example, US and Singapore 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, while Singapore's nominal GDP per capita has surged to USD 100,000. In other words, over the span of a single lifetime, Singaporeans have enjoyed a 200-fold improvement in nominal Dollar income, which is more than four times more than Americans (45-fold).

Defenders of the United States will object that comparison with Singapore is unfair, since Singapore is a special case. I disagree. Singapore got to where it is today on the back of the tireless work of its visionary leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who literally made excellence in public service the defining element of his administration.

However, what is often forgotten is that Singapore made a deliberate policy choice. Lee Kuan Yew only got Singapore to where it is today through a lot of hard work. In Western democracies, we almost regard democracy like an immutable pillar of society. We seem to have forgotten that democracy needs constant adjustment and fine-tuning. Our democracies have barely changed since they were first introduced hundreds of years ago and by now most Western democracies are in dire need of major overhaul.

Like Singapore, we must actively seek change. We must commit to deep and sustained political reform in order to get our politicians to act in the public interest. The single most important thing we can do is to change the incentive system facing politicians. The current political incentive system gives far too much leeway to elected officials to cheat, lie, hoodwink, and cajole voters with near-impunity. We only hold them 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, it boils down to a simple question: does your government act in the public interest or does it serve narrow interest groups? Charlatans and interest groups do not drive public service delivery in Singapore, but there are plenty of both in the US government, especially in the current one.

We need to get back to the old idea that the purpose government is to deliver services to the public. Why else bother to tax people, why else bother to have a public sector at all?

To get better services, we must 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 appear on ballot papers with the status of legally binding contracts. Voters then give politicians their cross on the ballot in exchange for a credible commitment to deliver the defined set of objectives stated on the ballot paper.

 _____

A system with far stronger incentives for politicians to deliver on election promises would give rise to an entirely new type of politics in Western democracies. For one, politics would be far more boring than it is today in exchange for which we actually get what we vote for. Politicians would be motivated by large bonuses and moral satisfaction, not for power per se or to have their egos massaged. Politics will therefore be the exact opposite of what we have today, where there is plenty of excitement, but very poor service delivery and an abundance of moral corruption and abuse of power.

Legally binding election commitments will especially appeal to capable professionals and excellent managers. Politicians will have incentives to enter into pre-election coalitions rather than sorting things out after votes have already been cast. The most successful politicians will be the technocrats, who can find solutions to the country's problems rather than charlatans who merely cherry-pick among projects to maximise their own chances of re-election. Our leaders will actually solve problems, be mandated and resourced to do so, and rewarded according.

At the same time, the new politics will be merciless on charlatans, punishing those audacious enough 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 that we have it within our powers to become a lot less like the United States and a lot more like Singapore. We have it within our powers to make democracy a force for good. The bad news is that we are going to have to do it from the grassroots up, because none of the current crop of political charlatans in charge have the slightest interest in stronger accountability.

The End