Will crisis be catalyst for anarchist?

Will the ongoing crisis be the catalyst for anarchist views?

SINGAPORE - Anarchism goes back a long way before the dawn of the common era. Quotes such as “There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind” and “A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State” can be found in the works of Taoist sages Laozi and Zhuangzi. In the big screen, the anarchist theme is explored through the portrayal of the dagger wielding V in V for Vendetta.

What do anarchists believe in? Basically, they do not see the necessity of compulsory governance. In other words, they envision a society that is free from a governing authority. There is a prevalent misconception that anarchism is synonymous with violence. Whilst some forms of anarchism advocate the use of violence, pacifist-anarchism rejects the use of violence. Mahatma Gandhi is the embodiment of such an ideal.

On the economics front, it is not unusual for anarchists (particularly the anarcho-capitalists) to support a free market that typefies a laissex-faire economy. They dismiss the notion of any form of governmental intervention within the economy.

The pertinent question is what conditions in Singapore’s context can serve as the breeding ground for anarchist views? Actually, one need not look any further for answers - our monochromatic political landscape that is dominated by a single entity. Since the 1950s, it has always been the lightning symbol that represents the PAP pervading throughout the entire political landscape.

There hasn’t been much opposition to the PAP. Since the 90s, the opposition contested at most half of the seats that are up for grabs. More often than not, the PAP is returned to power on Nomination Day. Thus, Singaporeans basically have to stomach whatever the PAP has offered on the platter.

Whilst it is the norm for governments of other countries to have an alternative cabinet, which is also known as the shadow cabinet, there hasn’t been any alternative to the PAP government so far. If the PAP is perceived to be failing to perform up to mark and the situation is exacerbated by the absence of alternatives, wouldn’t this provide a fertile setting for the belief in rejection of a state (government)?

When the country is on the backfoot as a result of an international crisis, the PAP government would always point to the fact that we will always be affected by externuating factors beyond our control and it is beyond their powers to prevent such a thing from happening. With just the PAP in charge and just as helpless in the face of the crisis, some individuals might perceive that the country will still be affected even if the PAP government is absent. Wouldn’t this serve as an attractive foreground for such individuals to reject the relevance of governance, especially during such trying periods?

The typical anarchist would find a governing authority undesirable. For a local who has lost his job to his foreign counterpart and is therefore affected by the pro-foreigner policies (such as issuing work permits, awarding permanent residentship) pursued by the PAP government even during such trying times, wouldn’t the former perceive the latter as undesirable and, a liability? The affected local will feel the same as the anarchist, no?

Thus, when individuals start questioning the relevance of the government especially in periods of great crisis, they are in effect a few steps closer to the boundaries of anarchism. The route to anarchism is finally complete when they progress to rejecting the notion of a government. Of course, not all progress to that stage.

Classic mistakes by our government in the past make good ammunition for the anarchist to use against the former. Recall that years ago, a group of entrepreneurial individuals pioneered the “meals on wheels” (mobile food van) concept which allows them to sell food and beverage in certain areas. They approached the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to obtain the latter’s permission to operate the business. And what did URA do? Instead of keeping the business concept between itself and its pioneers, the former implemented the concept on a wide scale, opening it to the general public. They even had a balloting system for the allocation of permits. The best part was that the hours the vendors were allowed to operate were restricted. When intellectual property should be respected, URA did otherwise. What happened in the end? The mobile food van was finally phased out. So much for entrepreneurship.

The anarchist, particularly the anarcho-capitalist, would use this URA saga to show the undesirable effects of government intervention and promote the benefits of a free-wheeling laissez-faire market. And suggestions for our government to privatize the economy in a laissez-faire approach and let entrepreneurs run the show has the word “anarcho-capitalism” written all over them.

It has been well-documented that Singaporeans are politically apathetic. Do they really display political apathy or they have reached the stage where they have become nonchalant about anything and everything with regards to our governance, which effectively makes them closet anarchists?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24651.1