AUTHORITARIAN RESILIENCE AMIDST RISING INCOME INEQUALITY: CONSENSUS-BUILDING VIA IDEOLOGICAL HEGEMONY

Abstract

This dissertation provides an inquiry into how some non-democracies have managed to stay resilient amidst rising income inequality while others have not. Here, I conduct a within-case comparison between two key periods in contemporary Singapore politics – 2001-2010 and 2011-2019 – which have varied in the resilience of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) regime that has monopolized political power since 1959. While the material-centric theories in current literature allege that inequality creates resentment and pressures for regime transition, the Singapore case has been quite the opposite; whereas PAP’s rule remained stable despite rising inequality during 2001-2010, 2011-2019 saw an unprecedented emergence of contestation against PAP although inequality was empirically declining. Noting the limited explanatory purchase of the existing materialist approach, this dissertation demonstrates the salience of often-neglected immaterial factors like consent in influencing regime continuity. Specifically, it argues that authoritarian regimes can remain resilient amidst rising income inequality if they establish hegemonic consent for income inequality by legitimizing it as an acceptable outcome, provided there is sufficient state capacity and authoritarian value orientation among the masses. Following Antonio Gramsci’s notion of ideological hegemony, usually unpalatable conditions like inequality can be justified, legitimized and prevented from generating discontent with the government’s performance. By building consent for inequality amongst the masses, non-democracies can arrest its potential to trigger contestation against them and thereby remain resilient.