Many of your questions are factual, and the answers publicly
available, acknowledged and written/analysed in various academic
texts, journal articles and legal commentaries. I will answer them
simply leaving you to read up if you are genuinely
interested.
robertteh writes,
Did Indonesia develop its present democracy from its
heritage?
Indonesia's first experience with democracy was in 1945 when it
gained its independence and promulgated its first constitution.
Strong president, weak legislature. That's its 'heritage'.
robertteh writes
Did Japan, Taiwan or India take advantage of its heritage in
coming to their present electoral democracy ?
Japan- American Occupation (1945-1952) reformed its entire
political system, but also left a place for the Japanese
monarchy.
Taiwan- based on 1946 constitution which was drawn up for
entire China
(incuding mainland).
India-British granted independence in 1947, constitution written
three years later, runs a bicameral parliamentary system and draws
extensively from British and American liberal democracies.
robertteh writes
I understand what you are trying to say that there are many
problems affecting countries trying to practise American democracy,
What I had pointed out is clear - that the problems you mentioned
with Taiwan, or Philippines are not necessarily attributable to
system failure. Many intervening factors may be involved to explain
why other democratizations do not work as well. Time is one factor
as I am sure you will agree.
Actually some democracies are unable to function properly simply
because they were badly designed in the first place e.g strong
executive, weak legislature, multitude of parties in parliament all
protecting their own agendas without compromise, strong
personality-based parties due to weak party system etc. Of course
other factors may exist, but this does not diminish the importance
of a well-designed constitution.
robertteh writes
I have merely tried to tell you to look at endurance of
democratic system of governance from a historical perspective to
show that despite all the criticisms against American or UK model
nonetheless, democracy has developed and been accepted by
increasing number of countries
I have said repeatedly I agree with you that American
presidential and British parliamentary democracies are universally
acknowledged as liberal democracies (see my many previous posts
which state those sentiments in exactly the same words!), but that
while they function well in their respective countries, it is
because they evolved over centuries according to the unique
historical circumstances. It is 'accepted' in the sense that other
countries realise that these are two democracies which have bits
here and there worth emulating, but they are NOT
accepted in the sense that the two models have been copied
wholesale elsewhere.
robertteh writes
Critics of American liberal democracy (as you would like to call
it) did not fully grasp its goodness but only look at it as full of
problems which in the final analysis may be just the same
everywhere or worse elsewhere.
You have made your judgement about American democracy and its
"goodness". For you, two hundred years is probably an adequate
period of time. Has it served the American people well? I have
pointed out the fracas in the last American election in 2000 in my
previous posting (6 Sept 2004). Those are facts and events which
have been (over)commented/analysed in the international media and
televised- if facts cannot convince you, perhaps you are so steeped
in American "goodness", probably nothing much else will. Let me
also add that various Senate enquiries, the various scandals of
ties between VP Dick Cheney and Halliburton, the expose of the
neo-convservatives and their agenda have only served to highlight
the fraility of current 'democratic' practices and dented the
credibility of the current US administration. (to put it
mildly!)
robertteh writes
If critics are so intent on criticising American or UK
democracy, surely it is not too much to ask them to define which is
the model best suited to a particular circumstance other than just
heritage or something loose or changeable.
Surely they can come up with some 7 points too for useful
discussions.
Of course it is good to have something to work with. I can do
that but I also have to add that there is no "true model" per se
that exists. All politcal scientists generally agree that democracy
should consist of: law and order, a functioning bureaucracy, civil
and political rights, universal suffrage, defined territorial
borders which confers citizenship, clearly defined responsibilities
and relationships of/between executive, legislature, judiciary and
constraints in the use of violence against citizens. (Browse any
texts/journals and you will find roughly the same guidelines.)
Perhaps it was crucial that you should have read up (even if just
from the internet) first, instead of writing in a offhand/loose
fashion your 7-point criteria and then expecting some form of
quaity debate.
robertteh writes
The substance behind their contention that there is no point to
discuss or there is no such thing as democracy or true democracy is
not presented so far despite my repeated request.
As you can see, many people have participated in this subject,
and it still remains at the top of the forum even as I write. One
works with what is available, without expecting too much. It's a
public forum afterall.
robertteh writes
In my opinion, true democracy may be idealistic, and different
country may need to approach it from their own perspective and
circumstances
I have noted that you tend NOT to answer the
specific questions I pose in previous postings, preferring to bring
up new questions (and old ones I have already responded to) or
prevaricate. I asked previously, what is 'true democracy'? 'True to
you or the people who have to live under it?'.
It is meaningless to say that 'democracy has been accepted and
developed' by many countries. That much is common sense. Even North
Korea calls itself Democratic People's Republic
of Korea. What is crucial is to grasp its intrinsic intricacies and
to apply it to unique national situations. Harping on American
'goodness' and resorting to cliches (as you have done in your
various posts on this subject) without a critical eye serves no
other purpose than reveal your own (misplaced) inclinations and
preconceived preferences.
