The year 2012 is an important year for many countries. This year, numerous countries will be holding their elections and already, we have seen much turmoil in countries France and Greece as voters have "punished" their leaders for implementing austerity measures against the will of the people. As we step into the "season" of elections, it is worthy to note about the impact that the widespread adoption of democracy as a political system has on our world, and perhaps, more importantly, to re-evaluate the effectiveness of democratic systems in governing societies to ensure the welfare of individuals. Like every system, democracy is not without its flaws. The reason why authorities were created to maintain peace over dynasties and kingdoms of the past and countries of the present was because a society composed of individuals, without a powerful figure to provide an overarching direction, will end up in as much dispute and instability as the Euro zone of today, where sovereign countries pursue their own goals without considering the needs of other parties since they are not bound by anything other than their status as a zone using a common currency. Is democracy really worth the efforts of all the revolts of the Arab spring in the end? Surely no one will know at this point in time, but by studying the trends in other countries, it is not difficult to realise that democracy is a much over rated system, though it does have its strengths.
Democracy, for one, is a system where there is no hierarchy. Like the rule of law, it is a system where every individual is empowered, where economic and political clout hold less (though arguably not zero) influences on the system. Under democracy of today's world, every person in a country is entitled to one vote. This reduces the direct influence of an individual on the outcome of votes as the average man on the streets has the same number of votes as those who have amassed assets possibly many times that of the former. Democracy promotes the fact that every individual has equal rights despite differences in socioeconomic background, which is a stark contrast to the system of capitalism where the "dollar vote" is skewed towards the rich, or the communist and authoritarian regimes where decisions are the reflection of the will of the ruling elite in society. This allows fairness and justice to be upheld as no individual can twist the country's policies in his or her favour, and all laws and policies are true reflections of the public's needs and values.
Secondly, democracy allows peaceful change over of power. In the recent years, we have seen how much bloodshed it would take to remove governments that do not function under a democratic system, as the Arab Spring swept across Northern Africa and the Arabian peninsula. In the past, the dawn of new dynasties have always been accompanied by revolutions to topple inefficient rulers. With democracy, much of this is avoided as voters can simply reject government policies through referendums to signal to their governments that they do not approve of the current method of governance. During elections, incompetent leaders can also be removed from their political duties through the collective power of voters as we have seen in Japan after the devastating Tsunami last year, without the need for a bloodstained revolution to occur.
Thirdly, democracy introduces competition into the political system. As we study the turmoil of the Arab world, we realise that much of the inefficiencies in the government exist because there were no checks and balances to regulate the government. Like a monopoly, a system that does not follow democracy would have a government which eventually grows complacent because governors assume that they rule the country because they deserved to be part of the government. This is best evidenced by how rampant corruption is in China and the Arab states before the revolution, where lavish lifestyles of officials funded by public taxes are not uncommon. In democracy, however, governments have to aim to be efficient and work in the best interest of the people lest they lose their place in the government. In the end, it takes a constant threat to keep people on their feet, and governments are no exception.
Finally, it can be argued that if governments are working towards to good of the people, then the general public should have a say in governance. While it would be too laborious a process for every single citizen to be consulted when policies are being drafted, the election of representative voices into the parliament gives citizens a say on the matter through their elected rulers. These voices in the government, can be said to best represent the people, being the one who has won the hearts and trust of the majority with ideals that coincide with the majority. Of course, there remains some who will be under represented since no candidate really clinches all the votes in an election, but it is still the best outcome given the variations in the values of individuals in society.
However, democracy is not fool proof. In fact, it is so susceptible to failure despite it being able to achieve all that mentioned above. While democracy represents the rights of all individuals to vote, it does not empower minority groups in governments. This is otherwise known as "tyranny of the majority", where decisions made marginalise the minority in the pursuit of the satisfaction of the majority. The continued strife for minority rights is most evident in countries like Sri Lanka (Tamils and Sinhalese), southwest Europe (Muslim immigrants and native Catholics) and Northern Ireland (Catholics and Protestants). While the welfare of society can be "maximised" by pleasing the majority, we cannot say that justice can be served even as society experiences this "maximum welfare", as the needs, desires and values of the majority infringe on the rights of minority groups whose practices are often highly accepted in other societies.
Also, democracy makes the assumption that people know what is best for them. This might not be so as individuals in society may be too short sighted to see the long term gains of policies that require sacrifices on the current enjoyment of individuals. For example, in Singapore, the use of the Electronic Road Pricing and high prices of the Certificate of Entitlement has caused much unhappiness among motorists. However, the general reduction in traffic congestion is not recognised by the public. It has been shown that car ownership in most developed cities eventually dip as motorists become frustrated over traffic jams that make private transport inefficient, but for this phenomenon to take effect, great environmental damages will have to first occur as jams spew tons of greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere and tons of fossil fuels are burnt. The government, recognising this trend, aided in the transition through the highly unpopular policies. In Europe, we see something worse being played out, as political parties supporting austerity measures are ousted from the political scene. The citizens of these European nations reject austerity measures even though it is the most direct method of saving their debt riddled countries simply because they are too myopic to see the long term gains.
There is also the assumption that elected politicians will strife for the best interest of the people. But is that always the case? In the recent years, much of American policy making has been slowed down but opposition to bills that are eventually passed when much pressure is applied. This is because the current system of party politics creates an environment that tempts politicians to oppose simply because they are from the opposition, and in fact, get rewarded with praises not for fine tuning policies but for rejecting them without offering better alternatives. This is why the Chinese government has been able to keep up the rapid rate of modernisation and economic growth, because policy making in China is accelerated by the single party system that has no opposition to stall progress, but many technocrats that modify and fine tune policies.
Finally, there is the risk of pork barrel politics. If campaigning is going to be a stage preceding elections, then funds will definitely be needed for politicians to become governors. This translates to an opportunity for large corporations to use their economic clout to influence policies, but supporting candidates during elections in return for favourable policies after candidates have been elected. As Sheldon Adelson aptly put it when he announced that he may donate to Newt Gingrich's campaign, "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections, but as long as it's doable I'm going to do it." In the end, it seems the fairness promised by democracy is not free from the clutches of those with the excesses of the world.
Democracy is definitely a system that has much improvement to increase the welfare of the people. However, we must note that in today's globalised world where countries are becoming increasingly diverse, few policies are able to please everyone and at times it takes good judgement by the government to understand where the people should compromise on their enjoyment for the benefit of all in future. Perhaps, with education of the public in subjects like economics, humanities and politics, it would be possible for citizens to better understand government policies and accept previously politically unacceptable policies that require compromise ranging from minority issues to economic policies so long as the policies are made in the public's best interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment