“Let Them Play My Game”: The Authoritarian Paternalistic Referee in Singapore

• In Event: 50 Years of LGBTQ Scholarship at APSA Mini-Conference: Frontiers in LGBT Politics Research

Abstract

In the absence of interest group competition facilitated by multi-party democratic systems, how do authoritarian regimes resolve the challenges of pluralism, including movement-countermovement rivalry over contentious social issues? This article theorizes that authoritarian states can adopt a “paternalistic referee” role, a form of nonviolent, immaterial control distinct from strategies like repression and co-optation (Hassan et al. 2021).

Examining Singapore’s 2022 repeal of Penal Code Section 377A (criminalization of male homosexuality) based on activist interviews, parliamentary speeches and media reports, I analyze both the “referee” and the “paternalistic” aspects of the role. First, unlike repression or co- optation, the authoritarian referee does not outright choose “winners” or “losers” on specific contentious social issues. Rather, the autocrat-as-referee assumes an appearance of neutrality. Second, a paternalistic referee defines the “rules of the game” (mobilization boundaries) for contention participants, and sets the “programming” (time, venue, and agenda) for arbitrating contention outcomes. Assuming the paternalistic referee role allows autocrats to project a democratic façade and mimic the conflict-resolution mechanisms facilitated by democratic party system, yet maintain control.

Building on “pragmatic resistance” (Chua 2014), I further posit that social movements are agentic players within the paternalistic referee framework: societal actors (e.g. movements) develop nuanced strategies to navigate the refereed landscape, thereby competing to shape policy outcomes. I also consider future research directions, including disaggregating the referee state into groups of non-unitary actors.

Author

• Nancy Tang