This article attempts to answer the puzzle of why, amongst undemocratic states, some regimes are more authoritarian than others. The author contends that differing party structures result in different authoritarian outcomes. A ruling, competitive authoritarian regime that has a party structure akin to a cadre party, or where there is little or no intra-party democracy, is more likely to be more authoritarian than a party which has intra-party democracy. The lack or absence of intra-party democracy ensures that elites remain cohesive and that there are lesser opportunities for the opposition to take advantage of divisions in the party, whereas in a party with intra-party democracy, there is a greater possibility of elite disunity, which could be capitalised on by the opposition, and there is also a greater likelihood of a different ideology being propagated by defectors from the party. The cases of the People's Action Party in Singapore and the United Malays National Organization in Malaysia are used to illustrate the author's case.

Purpose – One would not commonly associate democracy with Singapore, instead scholars have often described Singapore as an illiberal democracy and an authoritarian state. At the same time, all Singaporean school students recite the national pledge of allegiance in school every morning, in which they pledge “to build a democratic society based on justice and equality”. What do students know about democracy? Are they able to distinguish the characteristics of democratic systems from non-democratic ones? The purpose of this paper is to report on Singapore students’ understandings of democracy. Design/methodology/approach – Using a qualitative instrumental case study design, 64 students from three secondary schools were interviewed and the social studies curriculum was analysed. Findings – Overall, students had poor knowledge of democracy. Consistent with a lack of knowledge of democracy, most students also showed a relatively uncritical acceptance of hierarchy and deference to authority, and held a superficial understanding of citizenship. Civics lessons through social studies, and the school environment did little to promote students’ engagement with democracy. Research limitations/implications – The authors argue that it is important that students be given the opportunities to develop a basic conceptual knowledge of democracy, as they are not capable of discriminating democratic characteristics from non-democratic ones without it. At the very least, students should know the relevance of what they pledge relative to their nation’s model of democracy, or in the absence of a clear model, be encouraged to struggle with the various existing models of democracies so that, as the future of Singapore, they might determine and adapt the ideals that they deem best for the nation. Originality/value – This paper is an original study of Singapore students’ understandings of democracy.