Elfred,
1) assuming that the public have a very low level of
enlightenment and that the government leaders in an autocracy have
very high enlightenment is an extremely naive assumption,
since either party can have either a high level or low level of
enlightenement. The difference of course, is that the leaders of an
autocracy have a zero-sum case to enlightenment- either they are
extremely enlightened or extremely non-enlightened and succumb to
what u listed: conceit, arrogance, bootlicking etc. (which, i hope
i am right to assume, an enlightened one will not fall prey to).
Thus, the stakes are high; either 100% or 0%. in the case of the
democracy, a proper free one, and not a gerry-mandered, faked-out,
masked autocracy, like Singapore, it is of course a known fact that
the public can either be enlightened or non-enlightened, and not
just non-enlightened. Hey, as a matter of fact, there ware many
bright (read: enlightened) Singaporeans who are not serving in the
civil service i.e. they are mere members of the public. the
democracy makes such a situation that the non-enlightened are
cancelled out by the enlightened, so the effect is a more balanced
one than in an autocracy. THat is why, in true democracies, the
victory margin is usually very slim (As a rule, only Indonesia and
the Philippines are considered true democracies in SEA). ANd the
strength of a democracy is that the public is much less likely, on
the whole, to fall into the vices which you admit autocrats can
fall into, since the public is made up of diseparate intdividuals
with no common agenda, and thus they have different behavioural
patterns, unlike the autocrats, which will have a common behaviour
pattern throughout their small elite group.
Not really true. But anyway, it's just an assumption. What you
need to know is there's no such thing as reliable democracy or
system, only good men and women. Therefore I rather trust good
people than good system.
2)hmm... which FB forum are you referring to? YP BB's? haha, as
I told you before, SIngapore is not a true democracy; it is a
banana democracy, in the same way that Cuba used to be referred to
as a banana republic. YP BB is unfortunately not at all the free
press i am describing to you in the previous post. Rmb, the free
press is independent from all political parties'
involvement and influence. In YP BB, a majority of moderators
(unsurprisingly) come from within the ranks of the ruling party, so
YP BB's FB forum cannot be considered a democratic feedback
channel.
Never mind what BBS. YP moderators are just humans. There is no
such things as necessarily better or worst in what quality from
what specific rank.
In a way, if you join YP and end up moderating, what you would do
to X's post and what I'd do to the forum as moderator would be
entirely different. Here lies the reason why democracy is less
trustable. Do you trust the forum system? But the system could be
in the hands of moderators. So is it a good system that yields good
forum, or good moderators that yields good forum?
As for the issue on that laymen cannot be depended on to provide
the checks-and-balances required, what is your definition of
"laymen"? For one, those in research institutions are obviously
able to be considered as experts in their respective fields. THey
hold degrees which are equal in standard to government officials
themselves- in fact, some even have even higher qualifications. WHo
are we to judge on the leadership of NGOs? AI was founded by a top
lawyer in England who ahd the same qualifications as LKY- in fact,
he studied at tehs ame university. As for journalists in the press,
such a generalisation is invalid, as the spectrum in journalism is
great.
Do you think that political thinkers and petty elements and
snobbish businessman will think the same? Obviously no really so,
and hence their decisions and engine of thinking will be
different.
Degrees don't mean anything. Especially when it comes to
leadership. Self-explanatory. Who is the head who employs those
associate professors and doctorate holders running about in the
nation... PM Lee lor. Is he the best degree holder? You
decide.
Yeah, we cannot over-generalise.
About your point on the chain reactions.... In such an
interconnected world as ours, can we truely isolate all issues in a
specialistic manner? The chain considerations, which you seem to
disregard, may in fact be the important information tha tthe
government needs to decide on the correct policy. for instance, if
youa re just going to see the casino as an economic issue, then
most woefully you miss the larger picture of things.
No way. Actually, in the past it's even tougher without
computers and libraries with known formuli and so on. All along
it's the wisdom of the decision maker. National issues, especially,
almost always relate and have chain reactions.
3) *sigh*... my main point was that, a democracy will likely to
have more complete amount of information, because there are more
avenues for information retrieval, and more objective avenues at
that. Autocrats tend to all have the same umbrella perspective. the
advantage, then, of the democracy is that it provides a variety of
perspectives, certainly more than that of any, even the most
enlightened, autocratic administration. all the journalists and
researchers will definitely have differing takes, adn thus will
provide fresh perspectives that the main legislative or executive
has not come up with, unlike in an autocracy, where its nature
limits the perspectives to a limited few.
Well, not really true... Let me say... black cat white cat, as
long as the regime is stable, it's a good cat. Journalists, mine
young soul, ain't necessarily natural political thinkers. Most, if
not all, have no solid foundation, and just build and build on
knowledge from experience and exposures gain over time, just as one
civil servant would. But if foundation is crooked, no matter how
one accumulate facts and figures, it's not really applicable.
So, maybe think about it. Will Autocracy really necessarily be affected by
additional sources? Won't such words as 'confusion' come in if just
exposed to any info source? It's up to really who and how is the
regime.
And as you said, change comes fast, so if you can have more
perspectives on the change, you can quickly identify the best path
to take, and are mroe likely to make the correct decision on the
choice of action.
Correct... but only when you got the time and the speed of
response. More perspective means more time and thinking is
required. And confusion will doubtlessly possible. Have you
prepared you O'levels? There are so many things to study at times.
Some students know how to handle the flood of test-able subjects,
some just can't and would do better if they just concentrate on
some portions. So...?
your "you only need to know what you need to know" is badly
smacking of naivete. What guarantees that an enlightened autocrat
will know all that he needs to know, from the limiteed perspectives
he has of judging a specific issue? no man is perfect. the addition
is simple: in an autocracy, you only have the perspective of the
autocratic legislative-executive, but in a demcoracy, you have the
perspectives of the legislative, executive, free press, research
institutions and NGOS, which means that in a democracy is much mroe
likely to come up with a more effective plan of action than any
autocracy, even an enlightened despotism.
Wisdom, although draws from what you know and what experience
you got, but it's done at the minimum. Actually the whole story
means making the relevant decisions from the relevant minimum tools
(knowledge or what), to arrive at a relevant and eventually correct
decision.
If unwise, then even if it's democracy, it'd be just a whole flood
of texts and infos. It'd only means delays and
undecisiveness.
In conclusion, therefore, this is the reply:
Man ain't god, so can one man's wisdom (autocracy) always be
counted on to be better than many people (democracy) in handling
all the facts and figures required, which in this Information age,
are reaching an extreme amount? (Yes, and I am referring to teh
necessary information
only.) If you can, without doubt, answer yes, then I concede. If
you cannot make a definitive assent, then I urge you to think
again.
Thanks.
the pikamaster
Be the wise man. Have the wise man. There's no second
choice.
And most wise men don't like systems, cos systems ain't wise, they
are just systems.
You have better take a look at YP forum today. Clowns know no limit, and in a
population, my dear Pikamaster, there is only one decision and
there is only one right decision maker.
Politics, young friend, have no textbooks of 'how to make
decisions'. Many many participants may not mean much. Many times,
many participants means the few good ones are to be ousted. Don't
you still get it? Who don't wanna be the one making decisions? Even
clowns would.
Would you entrust national decision, of which our resources are so
scarce and pressure and our situation so critically sensitive, to
the decision of
average?
I clearly doubt so.
