Politics and the Humdrum of life

This post is actually a comment that I left on Garota's post (which can be found here)
"However, the vast majority of constituents – oh how I hate the word; they are humans with dignity and voice, not political commodities – do not relate to the politics nearly as much as they do to the pragmatics of representation and advocacy. People need to see the tangibles."
I thought that you would have realised this some time ago, coming from Singapore. It's something that I've come to realise as well. That to interest Singaporeans (or anyone for that matter) in politics, one must make politics relevant to the humdrum of their daily lives, rather than as some abstract notion of civil liberties, etc.

"inasmuch as it may be an inevitability in the course of delivering the real product: advocacy."
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Have we wondered why we want advocacy in the first place? Just for its own sake? Then it is useless.

IMHO, advocacy, freedom of speech, etc, is so as to reduce the possibility of having anyone being left out, of being marginalised, of being oppressed. How do we measure oppression? I suggest using tangibles. If everyone in a society is fed, clothed, housed, free to choose, etc. then I'd say that that society is free from oppression.

But such an ideal society will never be. To be free from oppression of poverty, Singaporeans forsook the freedom of expression. Perhaps to have the freedom of expression would end up consigning a sector of our society to poverty. Is that what we want?
My point therefore is that while we spread the idea of advocacy, of human rights, of liberal democracy, we MUST always be conscious of the welfare of the people. In pushing for all these lofty ideals, we must be sure that it indeed does bring about TANGIBLE benefits to the PEOPLE. Or at least be able to create a future where the PEOPLE will be able to reap the TANGIBLE benefits of the realisation of these loft ideals.

I guess we should all think about this: What use is advocacy and democracy if not for the TANGIBLE benefits to the lives and future of ordinary PEOPLE? Hence the real product that we should be delivering is not advocacy as you have mentioned, but rather the TANGIBLE benefits to the PEOPLE. (or, in the real world, to as many people as possible...)

From here on, it's no longer part of my comment on Garota's post:
Incidentally, I realised the above while working on the Political Development Feedback Group's paper (we are still working on it). We realise that political development cannot be for its own sake or for the sake of some lofty ideals of freedom of expression, democracy, etc. That will fail in Singapore. It will only work if the people realise that having the ability to affect decisions and policies while they are being made will directly impact their lives, and that engaging the government (i.e. getting involved in politics, not necessarily party politics) can lead to better lives for them and a better future for their children.

And it is indeed the case. In this day and age, the government no longer has a monopoly of wisdom (that is if they ever had...). Increasingly, the complexity of the world means that the government has to co-opt more people to generate ideas. This is not surprising as Singapore develops into a Knowledge-Based Economy where the generation of good ideas is the key to growth.

Good ideas are only generated if firstly ideas are being generated. Then we need to create an arena where we discuss these ideas, finding their antithesis, picking the best, or amalgating a few into the best idea and picking that one. In other words, we need to create a Millian marketplace of Ideas. And I see Political Development as one crucial step in the creation of this marketplace, insofar as Political Development being people's willingness to engage the government and one another in the formulation of policies and the making of decisions for the Greater Good.