“The PAP is obviously drunk with power,” you would have heard them say. “We’ll show them when we vote them out the next election!”
It’s an awfully simplistic attitude, perhaps bred out from how democracies work. If I’m not happy with the state of affairs, I’ll express my discontent by casting my vote another way. It’s akin to the threats given by a child, even: “If you don’t buy me that new iPhone, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll show you by running away!” To what, my dear child? Social services which proceed to cast you into a house with a gambling father, drunk mother? Or you might be lucky and end up with just the perfect parents, you never know. Another way of thinking about it is believing in love at first sight, or love after a blind date– nobody dismisses the possibility of that, but I’d think your lifetime of happiness has too much at stake to marry a person after a couple of dates, just as the fate of a country has too much at stake to rely on luck to bring you the perfect combination of traits in a party that you’ve only just known through campaigning.
I’m not saying that we stick to status quo, just as a battered husband/wife should not stay in the marriage just because that’s the only person they’ve known deeply. Perhaps democracy got something right– some people are too firmly stuck in their characters to change for the better, so we should change the people instead. I’m proposing, however, for the people who are willing to learn, to change for their loved ones because they are hurting them with their actions, that we help these people to do so by engaging with them, by guiding them, so that with time, they grow into parties we can be proud of. And we will grow through this process as well.
Unfortunately, unlike love, this country can’t be single if it doesn’t find a suitable person who’s willing to change. Anarchy hasn’t been known to work.