Rambling Thoughts on Democracy

[Guest fountainhall]

Once again an election in Italy has produced a stalemate, a result similar to most of the elections held there since the mid-20th century. With a corrupt former Prime Minister at the centre of various trials desperate to get back into office so these can be halted or at least further delayed, and a bankroll so large it could fund dozens of elections, Italy seems destined once again for chaos.

Does democracy actually work in a country like Italy? Since 1953, Italy has changed Prime Minsters and the parties in power no less than 37 times. Italy may be the worst, but it is not alone. In that period, Japan changed PMs 29 times, but with the same party in power for 51 of the 60 years. Britain has had 11 PMs, not always a result of change of government. The US has also had 11 Presidents with Congress changing parties 8 times.

Dig deeper into Asian democracies. Japan’s corrupt system of government, where the power has long been vested in all-powerful long-term civil servants ruling their own roosts with rods of iron, has been mired in near stagflation for more than 2 decades. The initial cosy relationship between government, the monster zaibatsu corporations and their own cosy cross-shareholding relationships helped propel the country out of the quagmire of defeat in 1945. But the system snapped around 1990 and no-one seems capable of fixing it.

The Philippines, left with a US-type democratic system after its American masters decamped, is the perennial sick man of the continent, its Presidents often elected mostly through bribes and later found to be out-and-out crooks – Marcos, Estrada, Arroyo being the most obvious. And still the shocking, mind-numbing poverty in the country compared to the obscene wealth of the few is surely a powerful indictment of its democratic system.

‘Democracy’ kept other dictators like Sukarno and Suharto of Indonesia in power for 53 years as they looted the treasury. Few would argue that the rod of iron that kept Mahatir Mohammed as Malaysia’s PM for 22 years had more to do with persuading his cronies and the powerful corporations to cough up and fund his mega projects than with one-man-one-vote democracy. If in doubt, ask his once-annointed and then falsely jailed and humiliated successor Anwar Ibrahim how he sees it!

 

(Yes, I know. Super-power diplomacy had everything to do with the maintenance of a friendly status-quo and paid rarely more than lip-service to democracy. But  the Cold War is history. The need to prop up dictatorships has definitely changed).

Now compare all that with Singapore - 3 PMs and the same party in power for almost the entire period. Admittedly starting from a far lower economic base, Singapore is the envy of much of the developed world. It has its problems, as abang has aired on another thread, and these may yet derail its economic miracle. Yet, has its lack of a vibrant democracy similar to those of western countries impeded its progress? I would actually suggest the opposite.

I’m not suggesting it's the model to copy. But where in other countries can you find Singapore's powerful vision and its drive and determination to achieve that vision? Something is rotten with western-style democracy. Democratic values and capitalism are the only way to drive the world forward, is the mantra spouted by western nations. Yet capitalism for generations created most of its wealth through the massive exploitation of others. The greed it engenders even today still condemns huge swathes of populations to near poverty. Freedom and one-man-one-vote is preached from on high. But does it still work as the world struggles out of the economic morass it is embroiled in due to the greed and excesses of the capitalist system? Is there no better way?

[Guest]

Democracy might just be the best system we have, but there are many flaws.

 

1 Voters who have no grasp of economics can vote for politicians who have no grasp of economics, combined with no management experience and no management ability. Yet such politicians can be spending over 40% of gdp. What they don't realise, is they don't have the talent to control such a budget & get value for money.

 

2 Politicians usually take a short term view in order to get re-elected. Hence irresponsible borrowing.

 

3 In a constituency based system, an MP in a safe seat is very difficult to remove.

 

4 MPs can still vote for unique tax exemptions and perks, which apply only to MPs.

[KhorTose]

I guess almost everything you have said about an MP can apply to a US representative.  However, in truth neither England or America are a true democracy in that they have both put in place safeguards to insure the majority does not dominate the minority.  If England never did anything else this concept of "a rule of law" is probably one of its most important contributions to the world.  If the majority ruled, Americans would have to all be Christian, straight, Caucasian and vote for members of the Bush family.

[Guest thaiworthy]

If the majority ruled, Americans would have to all be Christian, straight, . . and vote for members of the Bush family.

 

I'd rather die.

[ceejay]

I think the defining feature of a democracy is to provide a lawful and peaceful means of removing people from power and, for it to function, those in power have to accept it. The alternatives are either dictatorship, or a country where successive governments are removed by revolution or military coup.

I don't entirely agree with Khor Tose that defence of minority rights denies the existence of a true democracy. The "Rule of Law" goes back a long way in English history, to Magna Carta (although the importance of that lies in its establishing the principle that government itself is subject to the Rule of Law, rather than any particular provisions in it). The 1689 Bill of Rights (much of which is still in force) can be seen as a statement that freedom of conscience is an over riding right that is in the interests of all - majority and minority alike, within the framework of democracy. (Of course, at the time and for nearly 150 years afterwards, that did not include being Catholic. Still doesn't, if you have ambitions to be, or to marry, the monarch).

[Guest abang1961]

Yes my friend, KY had ruled Singapore with an iron fist.

It was always top down and it did worked for Singapore in the first 30 years since 1965.

 

 

Things have changed slightly, just slightly.

More able men and women are coming out of their safe haven to speak up against certain issues.

Gone were the days when we believed what we were told.

Naive and blind obedience are things of the past.

 

 

Is Singapore democratic? Yes but insufficiently so.

The ruling party's record of high scores during elections is eroding faster than the shoreline at Sentosa, a popular but plastic destination here in Singapore.   In less than 10 years, it lost nearly 15% ..now it is down to 60%.  Yes, a very shaky majority.

 

 

 

Would Western style of democracy work for Singapore? Yes but not right now.

As long as the older generations, those above my age (I am already old by Asian standards) still exist,

I don't think there is a chance at all.   There is simply too much baggage to abandon old Asian customs.

 

For example, homosexuality is not publicly accepted but they do allow the gay establishments to strive..

There are at least 5 gay saunas in Chinatown area.. not to mention the restaurants and bars/discos etc.

The public can congregate at only one location, Hong Lim Park (which is less than 1 km from all the saunas)

to voice their opinions...

[Guest fountainhall]

Those who watched and loved the British TV series "Yes, Minister!" and "Yes, Prime Minister!" will be aware that when talking about MPs and Congressmen, you cannot leave out the influence of senior Civil Servants. Whilst these were figures of fun on TV, in real life they wield much greater influence than we might be aware. For a start, they continue in power more or less for life. In Japan, as I alluded to above, they are actually far more important than the politicians. There, each Ministry is a veritable viper’s nest of civil servants who are effectively a law unto themselves. If a journalist writes something against a Ministry's action, that journalist is barred from future media conferences. They actually act against democratic principles. I'm sure jovianmoon and others who have lived in Japan will agree.

Politicians are therefore secondary in the power equation, and this may be one reason why Japan is totally stuck in its two decades-old quagmire of recession.

In colonial Hong Kong, it was the civil servants which held 95%+ of the power. When it had an enlightened Governor, as it certainly did in its longest serving Governor, Sir Murray MacLehose (a much-loved man whom Hong Kong people would unquestionably have elected President had there been elections at the time), vast projects were undertaken and financed to help most of the population – 3 new towns for over 500,000 each to house an endless stream of refugees, the subway system, protection of the rule of law, and – most importantly – the virtual elimination of endemic corruption thanks to the founding of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. One man could do all that in a very short space of time. It seems to me elected governments can’t. For how many decades have the arguments about Heathrow's 3rd runway been going on - a political time bomb each time tossed forward to the next government to solve or again pass on? 

Similarly in Singapore, it seems the politicians in the shape of the clique around the PM hold most of the power. As I said, it may not be the model to copy in the 21st century, and Singaporeans are, as abang points out, starting to become vastly more politically savvy – perhaps as China will become in a few decades time. But enlightened dictatorship in Hong Kong’s and Singapore’s case or an oligarchy as in the case of China (which for discussion I shall say has been mostly enlightened over the last two decades) certainly gets the job done far better than democracies in Greece, Italy, Portugal, the UK and the US have in recent times.