PART TWO
it had triumped over dark forces existing in all political
systems of one kind or another. It has triumphed over dictatorship,
centrally controlled governance, and guided or control-based
systems over the ages.
I certainly didn't imply that anywhere in my post! (or perhaps I
misinterpreted you?) Democracy has NOT triumphed.
In fact, a famous American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama,
in his book The End of
History? predicted that liberal democracy would become the
victorious idealogy over other forms of political governance at the
end of the century with the defeat of Communism.........but this
has proven to be false. In fact, the Clash of Civilizations (Samuel
Huntington) has occurred, and many other contending forms of
ideologies have reared its head. In this case, Islamic
fundamentalism is fighting to impose its version of Islamic
(shariyah and hudud) laws in Islamic societies, especially the
Middle East. Even in neighbouring Malaysia, PAS has a place in
Kelantan.
Without trying to offend, it is a sweeping and rather ignorant
statement to proclaim in such a triumphant tone that dark forces
have been defeated. Hahaha.....are countries which do not subscribe
to the Western model of liberal democracy evil? Three quarters of
the world must live in evil regimes then! What about China, a
centrally governed country.......for all the bad press that it has
garnered in the West, it has performed the most breathtaking of all
human feats in one generation- eradicating poverty for hundreds of
millions of citizens (of course much more needs to be done too).
Democracy has also been introduced at the village level, and
political corruption is a problem being taken seriously at the
highest level. But one needs to be patient where results are
concerned- it is a huge country with a huge population. The
government needs time to carry out political reform, and this
cannot be accomplished in one or two generations, especially with
other more pressing economic priorities.
At the centre of this political transformation, is democracy
championed by free people in Europe and America. So much was the
historical impact of the goodness of democracy that it is being
copied to a lesser or greater extent by Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
Philippines, India, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
Not all of these countries which decided to introduce free
elections had made it to be truly successful in the holistic sense
- not just economic or material wellbeing alone
No Asian country "copies" wholesale liberal democratic practices
from the West. In fact, "copy" is not a word I would use so readily
although newly independent countries do learn from the West. Each
country merely takes advantage of its own heritage (e.g. American
Occupation in Japan or British legacy in India), evolves, adopts,
and emulates best practices. Hence Japan has retained its monarchy
and instituted a parliamentary sysem even though the US has no
monarchy and practises presidential democracy.
Even then, success is not immediate. Japan and South Korea have a
long history of politcal corruption at the highest levels. Former
Japanese Prime Ministers and Korean Presidents have continued to
make a spectacle of themselves on TV on charges of corruption. As
for Taiwan, I do not think populist and nationalist politics (e.g
harping on Taiwanese, rather than Chinese identities), is
necessarily the best way to go. Parliamentarians throwing chairs
and punching each other during parliamentary sessions is certainly
NOT a reflection of 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom to express
oneself'.
Democracy is obviously successful after many centuries . It is
for countries which did not follow its true practices to refine
them to suit their needs and requirements.
It's too early to mak a judgement call. You assume that there is
only one form of democracy, when it is self-evident there are many
forms. What are the 'true practices' anyway? (robertteh's 7-point
criteria?) Is there only one 'true way' as practised in the West?
Are other variations according to cultural, historical, social
requirements less 'true'? Is Japanese liberal democracy 'true' even
though the Liberal Democratic Party has for the most part (except
for the early 1990s) dominated the contry's political landscape? Is
Indian democracy 'less true' despite the dominance of the Indian
Congress Party, and the influence of the Ghandi 'political
dynasty'? True to who? The West? or the people who have to live
with the system in each part of the world?
You also imply that democracy's failure or success can be easily
judged in a short period of time. That's evidently 'untrue'. As I
pointed out repeatedly, political evolution is a long and tedious
process.
I would have loved to talk about Singapore's context, and why you
find it disagreeable. But I think the post is getting too long ago,
and perhaps this will give you time to ponder on what has been said
so far. 
