DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY

last SG · 2004-09-06T21:30:40+00:00

Hello BadzMaro, Thanks for the suggestion. I am only giving my views as a citizen as encouraged by PM Lee so that if there are mistakes in the past they wil...

suntze SG

Robetteh,

Parliament is supposed to represent its constituents to debate and vote on important issues. However, the problem with the system is that MPs often are not allowed to vote freely and have to toe the party line.

Even assuming that MPs are better informed than the average citizen and that debate is given free rein, votes are taken along party lines, rather than on the merit of the case and least of all, representative of the voters.

Hence, even if the casino issue is subject to a show of hands in parliament, I doubt it will fairly represent the views of Sporeans. This is practical democracy but is this true democracy?

robertteh SG

Precisely the point !!!

There is no need for any high intellect or philosophizing really for the more educated and sophisticated people to know which direction they want the Singapore nation to go.

Its citizens want to participate in governance and will contribute only when they see fair, equitable and correct policies being implemented in accountable political processes.

Past mistakes and shortcomings have to be recognized fast and changed:-

It is incorrect to make important decisions affecting citizens behind closed doors among cabinet members. This is not right!!!

Listen to the quiet but strong desire of the people and change to more just and equitable practices.

Take a look again at how people fulfill their wishes and aspirations through the ages as follows: (no political discourse required as it is a matter of common sense really)

PEOPLE ELECTED OR SUPPORTED GOVERNMENT BASED ON MANIFESTOS OF PARTIES OR PRESUMED WISHES OF PEOPLE.

MPs/PARTIES ARE THEN VOTED ON THESE MANIFESTOS (including in our case election speeches promising more jobs more good years, lowering costs of living, affordable housing etc)

Are sufficient efforts being made to solve the 20 problems with autocracy as posted. What have been done to solve any of these problems? Any improvements or changes?

It is suggested urgent actions be taken on the following:-

(1) Economic restructuring,
(2) Accountable and transparent processes,
(3) In-depth assessments of past education, investment and job creation policies and practices (in-depth examination of pro-foreign policies and practices to see how they will serve Singaporeans' interests as well as create jobs)
(4) Lower costs of living and doing business and re-vitalize the deeply disadvantaged or neglected domestic sector of economy?
(5) Do not just promote a small percentage of citizens or businesses (GLCs and Bigger corporations) under grade-driven education policy of the past but broad-based education to nurture more entrepreneurs to meet new economic strategy of future.
(6) To liberalise political and intellectual spaces by true acceptance of views and feedbacks of citizens? Laughing

suntze SG

There is one point in particular that I would like to explore and I quote the following,

"Its citizens want to participate in governance and will contribute only when they see fair, equitable and correct policies being implemented in accountable political processes.

Past mistakes and shortcomings have to be recognized fast and changed:-

It is incorrect to make important decisions affecting citizens behind closed doors among cabinet members. This is not right!!!

Listen to the quiet but strong desire of the people and change to more just and equitable practices".

The government in years past had prided itself on its ability to implement unpopular measures. The premise of such policies, (often not without traces of hubris), is that the government knows better than the citizens they represent. As a matter of course, this cannot but be true (with the exception of expert groups within the community) since most citizens do not have the expertise and information available to the government.

The approach is similar to that of business corporations run by professional managers on behalf of shareholders. Shareholders entrust the managers to run the business and do not make business decisions.

However, in the long run, it is dangerous for the government (and ultimately for the community) should authorities persist in pursuing unpopular policies without fully explaining the issues and taking into account legitimate views. It is encumbent on the goverment to have the facts published, issues debated and to have the decision process made transparent and accountable.

IMO, only through deep commitment to a process of raising the standards of community awareness and education could the government ensure the long-term survival and prosperity of Spore. Encouragingly, I do see signs that LHL understands this fundamental issue and is moving gradually in the right direction.

robertteh SG

Hello Suntze

If the promise to open up intellectual and social spaces signalled in PM LHL's inauguration speech is fulfilled and government made more accountable to the people to serve their needs and aspirations, (not for egoism or autocratic purpose) then it will be a good start of evolving Singapore's particular brand of accountable and participative democracy.

Accountable and participative democracy is what Singapore needs now to take it to the next level. My two cents worth. Laughing

crazy monkey SG

Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.

In practical effect, this definition generally comes with qualifications and limitations. In most modern democratic nations, for example, the set of citizens who can exercise these powers through voting are restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older. A further qualification is that, realistically, in elections, decisions are not made by the whole of "the people", but rather by most of the people who actually participate.

The term "democracy"or more precisely, the original (ancient Greek) version of the wordwas coined and the system of citizen rule invented thousands of years ago. Over time, the meaning of the term has changed and especially since the 18th century, with successive implementations in many nations, a modern definition has emerged

crazy monkey SG

Real world meaning and definition

There are many varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.

In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.

The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατíα from δημος meaning "the people", plus κρατειν meaning "to rule", and the suffix íα; the term therefore means "rule by the people." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism (as in the final stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.

Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.

While democracy per se implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be characterized more fully by the following institutions:

A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights."

crazy monkey SG

Famous viewpoints on democracy

There is much debate on the ability of a democracy to properly represent both the will of the people and to do what is right.

On the one hand, Winston Churchill said:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
On the other, Edmund Burke:

"I cannot help concurring [e.g., with Aristotle, inter alios] that an absolute democracy, no more than an absolute monarchy, is not to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic."
Burke expressed his view as agreement with Aristotle because Aristotle had called democracy one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two: ochlocracy and tyranny).

Further, people who believe that any government will do more harm than good (i.e. anarchists), naturally regard the issue of whether the best government is democratic as secondary, comparing that question to "How long is the horn of a unicorn?"

crazy monkey SG

Role of political parties

Some critics of representative democracy argue that party politics mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents. But it can also be argued that the electors have expressed their will in the election, which puts the emphasis on the program the candidate was elected on, which they are then supposed to follow. One emerging problem with representative democracies is the increasing cost of political campaigns, which tends to lead the candidates into making deals with wealthy supporters for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected.

Les Marshall, an expert on the spread of democracy to nations that have not traditionally had these institutions, notes that "globally, there is no alternative to multi-party representative democracy" for those states that embrace democratic methods at all. This is not controversial: representative democracy is the most commonly used system of government in countries generally considered "democratic".

crazy monkey SG

Elections as rituals

Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy.

Firstly, elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. This can happen in a variety of different ways:

restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election
restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are permitted to choose while in office
voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g. through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates)
or most simply through falsification of the results
Historical examples of this include the USSR under the CPSU before its collapse in 1991, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos.

In addition, for countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy, until a wider shift in the political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government have occurred too. There are various examples, such as Revolutionary France or modern Uganda or Iran, of countries have only able to sustain democracy in a limited form until wider cultural changes occur to enable real majority rule.

crazy monkey SG

Tyranny of the majority

This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.

Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule may lead to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority,". This refers to the possibility that a democratic system can empower elected representatives acting on behalf of the majority view to take action that oppresses a particular minority. This clearly has the potential to undermine the aspiration of democracy as empowerment of the citizenry as a whole. For example, it is theoretically possible in a liberal democracy to elect a representative body that will decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly).

Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses to this. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. A constitution (whether written or unwritten) can ensure a distinction between policy enacted through the legislature and executive, and the modification of fundamental constitutional rights, which may require a more deliberative procedure (such as an independent judiciary) and less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. Another common argument is that, despite these risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is at all events an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. In practice, history offers numerous examples of ruling minorities who oppressed a disenfranchised majority, as well as cases of societies that oppressed a minority of the enfranchised.

One clear conclusion from history is that possession of the franchise doesn't necessarily protect one from oppression. However, it can provide some defence.

Here are some examples of instances in which a majority has acted controversially against the wishes of a minority in relation to specific issues:

In France, some consider current bans on personal religious symbols in public schools to be a violation of religious peoples' rights.
In the United States:
distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency.
"pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists have characterized unborn children as an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority.
the draft early in the Vietnam War was criticized as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered.
The majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes.
Recreational drug users are seen by some as a sizable minority oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in many countries, through criminalization of drug use. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.
Society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. One example is the criminalization of gay sex in Britain during the 19th and much of the 20th century, made famous by the prosecutions of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing.
Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent. Whether this is pertinent to the dangers of modern democracies is itself a continuing matter of contention.
Some commentators object to the use of the term "tyranny of the majority" in relation to societies in the 19th century and earlier. They point out that few countries at that time, including democracies, had adopted universal suffrage. However, others argue that the term remains apt, as the situation that it describes can occur within the franchised community, even if that community does not extend to the whole population.

crazy monkey SG

Pros and cons

Traditionally, the purpose of democracy is to prevent the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few. It rests on a balance of giving enough power for what Alexander Hamilton called "vigorous and energetic government" and avoiding giving out so much power that it becomes abused. Democracy is believed by some, such as Winston Churchill, to be the "least bad" form of government. By creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. Democracy is also related to the idea of constitutional government, setting limits beyond which a current majority in government may not step.

Nonetheless, some people believe that there is no system that can ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where particular minority groups are protected from being targeted, majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision.

The threat of coercive power is still the main cause for concern. A historical example would be Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany, who was "elected" in 1933 by the German people with the largest minority vote. For this reason, some countries have created constitutions/laws that protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or, very rarely, a referendum. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. On the other hand, proponents of broader democracy wonder what gives a small minority of people (such as those who drafted the US Constitution, or other constitutions/laws) the right to impose their will on the majority.

In addition to constitutional protections for citizens' rights (such as the right to stay alive, express political opinions and form political organizations, independent and regardless of government approval), some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in which they can achieve a regional majority.

This proportional versus majoritarian dichotomy is a not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are common around the world, and each creates a very different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having someone who directly represents your little region in your country, versus having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional (majoritarian) representation, and proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional.

The democratic peace theory claims that democracies never or almost never make war against each other. A related but slightly different concept is Rummel's Law, which states that the less freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.

robertteh SG

Reply: Yes, I agree with you that the ancient Greeks had originated democracy and over time democracy has evolved into a more practical form widely practised by most democratic nations in Western Europe, UK and USA etc. Laughing

robertteh SG

Originally posted by crazy monkey:
[b]Real world meaning and definition

There are many varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.

In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.

The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατíα from δημος meaning "the people", plus κρατειν meaning "to rule", and the suffix íα; the term therefore means "rule by the people." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism (as in the final stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.

Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.

While democracy per se implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be characterized more fully by the following institutions:

A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights."

[/b]

There may be many forms of democracy but I do not think anyone should characterize any particular democracy as liberal democracy.

The term liberal democracy has been used loosely without particular definition to describe freedoms and choices as likely cause of instability against status quo without regard to the fact that non-democratic and authoritarian regimes were more often the primary causes of instability or revolutions throughout history.

History has proven again and again that dictatorial or autocratic regimes do not last no matter how enlightened they might be initially. There was no consistent enduring good rule under autocracy as compared with democracy in terms of modernisation and progress or rule by the people and for the people as you have correctly deduced from the ancient Greek democracy.

Today, no matter how circuitous democracy may be, democracy truly answer to the wishes of people or manifestos of parties. It stands solidly on principles of progress - the greatest good to the greatest number as practised by USA, UK and western European countries. Many democratised countries have advanced beyond leaps and bound whereas only limited and sporadic successes can be claimed for non-democratic rule. So much is the appeal of democracy that even autocracy prefers to be seen in democratic form.

I could accept your statement that from the 18th century democracy has evolved to be essentially a political rule "by the people" "of the people" and "for the people".

In the context of our discussion on autocracy versus contemporary Western democracy, what we are examining is the issue of how to adopt accountable and transparent governance processes like freedom of speech, association, right to vote and stand for election and rule according to open, participation by civic and professional bodies, NGOs, and citizen groups etc to evolve our autocratic rule to one more sustainable and answerable to the people.

Thus I do not think we can find the practical solutions in past academic reseaches on democracy or its more ancient origin. By comparison democracy certainly stands much taller than any of the systems like communism, anarchism or autocracy as a matter of well-established historical fact.

Liberal democracy to my mind exists as only a figment in the imagination of people critical of democracy. It is a derogatory term used used by anti-democratic politcians or political writers to protect biased views from non-democratic regimes as pointed out by me in reply to a Malaysian democracy-lambasting article as posted earlier.

In an autocracy, leaders elected democratically or otherwise proclaimed themselves as supreme leaders with unlimited power over other elected parliamentarians or people's representatives on the thin line of leadership or certain intuitive abilities with disregard to established accountable and transparent governance practices.

No justification will change autocracy or make it more sustainable in the long-term interest of the people, by the people and for the people.

In an autocracy, the elected Parliament will play only as a second fiddle. Through gerrymandeering, many democratic processes have been altered.

You prefer to give your own list of democratic processes as follows:-

Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities.

You described your list as one of "majority rule with minority rights." I can see little difference between your list and the 7 points of true democracy. I agree that your list too can serve as a practical platform offering good corporate governance to support our further growth.

[/b][/quote] Laughing

crazy monkey SG

Communism is a term that can refer to one of several things: a social and economic system, an ideology which supports that system, or a political movement that wishes to implement that system.

As a theoretical social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no privately owned means of production and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the state as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status. Theoretically, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of property as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the poverty cycle.

Perhaps the best known maxim of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This economic model is also referred to as a gift economy.

As a political movement, communism is a branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through various things - such as, for example, the communist desire to establish a gift economy, and their commitment to revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism.

A communist is someone who favors communism

crazy monkey SG

"Human nature"

Objectivists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature." Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.

Communists (and most Western social scientists) have a disdain for the concept of 'human nature' or an invariable 'human condition' which exists throughout all human beings. Communists usually take the view that it is the material conditions which surround a person, such as their environment, which shapes a persons character and the 'nature' of human beings is not determined by an underlying, constant condition which is present in all humans, but instead by the social and economic factors which surround them. And so consequently, this idea that 'human nature' is not invariable, or even that it does not exist, opens up the door to the argument that once capitalism has been destroyed, and socialism has been established, all selfish desires and greed will cease to exist. Once the economic and social conditions which make humans selfish have disappeared to be replaced by an atmosphere of mutual assistance and co-operation, then people can work not for their personal gain, or to accumulate commodities, but for the good of the collective and the community, thus making a better society for all.

crazy monkey SG

Democratic socialism

Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the ideals of socialism within the framework of a parliamentary democracy. Thinkers, writers and activists such as Robert Owen, Karl Marx, George Orwell, and Sidney and Beatrice Webb can all be said to have contributed to "democratic socialist philosophy". However, popular movements such as the growth of trade unionism, the Chartists and the Labour Party (UK) (a "democratic socialist party" according to the first line of its constitution) or the SPD in Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, are equally critical to understanding Democratic Socialism.

It should be noted, however, that many of those who describe themselves as "socialists" often argue that socialism necessarily implies democracy, thus making "democratic socialism" a redundant term. The fact that one specific movement is called Democratic Socialism does not mean that other branches of socialism must be any less democratic.

The terms "Democratic Socialism" and "Social Democracy" have often been used interchangeably, and, indeed, they could be considered synonymous until recently. Today, however, they usually denote two different things: Social Democracy is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with just a few socialist elements to make it more equitable and humane. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialism is more left-wing and it supports a fully socialist system, seeking to establish that socialist system by gradually reforming capitalism from within. Thus, Democratic Socialism is an evolutionary socialist movement.

Democratic socialists and social democrats both typically advocate at least a welfare state, although social democrats, being influenced by the Third Way, are now less committed to this. Democratic socialists maintain a commitment to the re-distribution of wealth and the nationalisation of major industry, and some believe in a planned economy; these are all concepts which social democrats have largely abandoned. In addition, many democratic socialists retain a Marxist analysis (though sometimes a reformist one), while social democrats reject Marxism.

Democratic socialist parties appeared before the First World War, when no single country could be described as democratic in the modern use of the term, because of electoral discrimination on the basis of gender, race or wealth. What distinguished democratic socialists from others was a willingness to work through a parliamentary democracy (even if people were still disenfranchised) to both improve the lives of working classes and win the vote, rather than resort to revolution (the overthrow of the state).

crazy monkey SG

Characteristics

Democratic socialists have normally defended the role of the public sector, particularly as regards the provision of key services such as health care, education, utilities, mass transit, and sometimes also banking, mining, and fuel extraction. However, their economic vision has often included a mixed economy with a greater emphasis on worker and consumer co-operatives, credit unions, family farms and small businesses, as compared to authoritarian Marxist-Leninists. In India, democratic socialists have to varying degrees seen the traditional village-based peasant economy as a model to be supported and enhanced.

Regarding tactics, democratic socialists include a spectrum of positions, from those advocating nonviolent resistance against capitalism, or the possibility of violent resistance under certain circumstances, to those committed exclusively to anti-capitalist reforms through parliamentary means (see evolutionary socialism and Fabianism). Democratic socialists advocating direct action may tend to similar positions with anarcho-syndicalism (with which democratic socialism shares the characteristics of being both anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian), although democratic socialists characteristically do not regard the state itself as an evil to be abolished.

robertteh SG

Originally posted by crazy monkey:
[b]Famous viewpoints on democracy

There is much debate on the ability of a democracy to properly represent both the will of the people and to do what is right.

On the one hand, Winston Churchill said:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
On the other, Edmund Burke:

"I cannot help concurring [e.g., with Aristotle, inter alios] that an absolute democracy, no more than an absolute monarchy, is not to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic."
Burke expressed his view as agreement with Aristotle because Aristotle had called democracy one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two: ochlocracy and tyranny).

While Winston Churchill might have said something to the effect that democracy was not perfect or world-wise, he certainly did not go so far as to say that there were other more progressive or enduring systems either.

Even though there exist certain shortcomings in democracy, democracy has gained popularity with people all over the world as compared with monarchy, tyranny, oligarchy or any other systems.

Since the days of Winston Churchill and Burke more countries have turned to democracy which is now a well-established form of government offering freedoms or rights to people to choose their representatives or good leaders and accountable and transparent processes to prevent abuse and malpractices.

Democratic countries have outperformed autocracy in terms of social and cultural, scientific and technological developments by large majority. This is because under conditions of freedoms of choice, etc people are self-reliant and motivated to excel in diverse fields thereby leading to progress and advancements and producing the greatest good for the greatest numbers.

Whereas good leaders come and go in autocracy, depending on particular circumstances and lucks, good leadership is sustained through casting the net wider.

Furthermore, no matter how enlightened particular leaders may be in an autocracy, autocratic self-centred closed-door decision making are against progress principle and stifling the growth of entrepreneurship in a knowledge-based new global economy.

So in order to evolve the best model of government one which will unlock the collective entrepreneurship and creaitivy of the people, there is a need to open up to participative governance to embrace the whole educated workforce. This is what our discussion is all about - where autocracy is a sustainable in the long term interest in our case versus democracy in our context.

The only point relevant of consideration in an autocracy is its claims of good leadership abilities or finding of good leaders. In an age of accelerating technologies, good leaders are not just a few top leades or people who are charismatic and insightful. Individualism is not efficiency or productivity in the first instance. Organizational efficiency and group creativity and synergy is the key to success in the new world. Especially valuable quality will be capability to motivate all in implementing decisions and policies subscribed to by the government and people.

Democracy offers (1) freedoms of speech, (2) freedom to elect the leaders of their choice to represent them, (3) accountable and transparent decision making processes and (4) participative governance and (5) checks and balances against possible abuse or malpractices,

In particular the holistic system of checks and balances under democracy even if a bit more circuitous will ensure fullest support and representation of people's rights and aspirations. Because of such accountability and transparency, and eventual support of the people, democracy will continue to outperfom tyranny, autocracy, oligarchy and other systems.

[/b]

Laughing

crazy monkey SG

We live in a time when the call for freedom and democracy echoes across the globe. Eastern Europe has cast off the totalitarian governments of almost half a century, and the republics of the former Soviet Union are struggling to replace the Communist regime of almost 75 years with a new democratic order, something they could never before experience. But the drama surrounding the extraordinary political changes in Europe obscures the remarkable degree to which the promise of democracy has mobilized peoples throughout the world. North and South America are now virtually a hemisphere of democracy; Africa is experiencing an unprecedented era of democratic reform; and new, dynamic democracies have taken root in Asia.

This worldwide phenomenon belies the skeptics who have contended that modern liberal democracy is a uniquely Western artifact that can never be successfully replicated in non-Western cultures. In a world where democracy is practiced in nations as different as Japan, Italy, and Venezuela, the institutions of democracy can legitimately claim to address universal human aspirations for freedom and self-government.

Yet freedom's apparent surge during the last decade by no means ensures its ultimate success. Chester E. Finn, Jr., professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Educational Excellence Network, said in remarks before a group of educators and government officials in Managua, Nicaragua: "That people naturally prefer freedom to oppression can indeed be taken for granted. But that is not the same as saying that democratic political systems can be expected to create and maintain themselves over time. On the contrary. The idea of democracy is durable, but its practice is precarious."

Democratic values may be resurgent today, but viewed over the long course of human history, from the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century to the rise of one-party regimes in the mid-20th century, most democracies have been few and short-lived. This fact is cause for neither pessimism nor despair; instead, it serves as a challenge. While the desire for freedom may be innate, the practice of democracy must be learned. Whether the hinge of history will continue to open the doors of freedom and opportunity depends on the dedication and collective wisdom of the people themselves--not upon any of history's iron laws and certainly not on the imagined benevolence of self- appointed leaders.

Contrary to some perceptions, a healthy democratic society is not simply an arena in which individuals pursue their own personal goals. Democracies flourish when they are tended by citizens willing to use their hard-won freedom to participate in the life of their society--adding their voices to the public debate, electing representatives who are held accountable for their actions, and accepting the need for tolerance and compromise in public life. The citizens of a democracy enjoy the right of individual freedom, but they also share the responsibility of joining with others to shape a future that will continue to embrace the fundamental values of freedom and self-government.

crazy monkey SG

DEFINING DEMOCRACY

Government of the People
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

« Previous Page Next Page »