As Vincent said, with the right type of democracy and competent people, democracy and create stability for a country, no matter where or what type of democracy it is. Of course, we see many examples of this today, like our very own Singapore.
However, we mustn’t forget that there exists another group of democracies, which on the other hand, aren’t so successful, and isn’t exactly very stable. Firstly, we have Nigeria.
After gaining independence from the United Kingdom in October 1, 1960, the corruption of the political processes in the 1966 elections, along with some religious disequilibrium, led to a considerable number of consecutive military coups and assassinations of leaders. One significant event was the breaking away of the eastern region in May 1967. It declared itself an independent state called the Republic of Biafra. On July 6, 1967, the remaining Nigerian side attacked Biafra, starting a bloody 30-month war which eventually ended in January 1970.
After his predecessor was overthrown by a military coup in 1985, the new head of state, Ibrahim Babangida, set 1990 as the official deadline for a return to democratic governance. He also enrolled Nigeria in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which as a result, inflamed religious tensions in the nation. Babangida pushed back his promised return to democracy to 1992 after surviving an abortive coup.
Finally, free and fair elections were held on June 12, 1993. However, Babangida went back on his word when he declared the results showing a presidential victory for Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola null and void. This sparked mass civilian violence in protest, forcing Babangida to relinquish office.
Upon electing Olusegun Obasanjo as the new President, Nigeria re-achieved democracy in 1999, ending about thirty years of limitary rule. Despite Obasanjo showing willingness to fight corruption, the 1999 and 2003 elections which brought him to power were condemned as “unfree” and “unfair”, and he was accused of being just as corrupted.
The current President of Nigeria, Umaru Yar’Adua of the People’s Democratic Party, was elected into power during the latest general election of 2007. This was witnessed by members of the international community and condemned as being massively flawed.
Nigeria is meant to be a Federal Republic modeled after the United States. But why is there such a huge difference in the outcome of the democracies, in terms of the stability created? In my opinion, the key difference is the choice made by the people.
The common people have to be able to choose wisely. Choosing the wrong leader could lead to the rigging of the next general election. This flaw in the system of democracy creates an endless loop of corruption, which in the case of Babangida, was eventually broken by mass civilian protest. This defeats the entire purpose; we don’t want to use violence to solve problems as such a solution compromises on the stability of the nation itself. As long as the people chooses honest and competent leaders, much of the rest is should be well taken care of.
As Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said during the 7th RI Lecture, “The real thing we should ask ourselves: In 30 years’ time, will Singapore continue to have a government that is honest, competent and cares for its people? If the answer to that question is yes, then it almost doesn’t matter which party is in power in 30 years’ time.”
Monday, July 7, 2008
Further discussion
I agree with Vincent's point. Indeed, democracy can never be true democracy without the presence of good leadership. In fact, it is the basic foundation for any form of government to function. Without good leadership, democracy can be manipulated to suit the interest of certain group of people, instead of the majority. One classic example would be the conflict in Northern Ireland. Catholics have larger population size than Protestants in the country, but Protestant-dominated government manipulated the law so that it can win the election and continue to stay in power. The law states that every household is entitled one vote, while companies are entitled more. Since most of the Catholics are homeless as government gives higher housing priority to the Protestants, they are not entitled to vote at all. In this way, Protestants, though being the minority, is able to dominate the political scene. This kind of democracy is not true democracy as the fundamental principle of equality is not upheld.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Definitions
Currently, all of us are talking about democracy. However, while we comment and compare democracies around the world, we have to note that every democracy is different in their own ways. Usually, a state that is a democracy is usually termed a "republic", but many different countries on the freedom spectrum are republics.
For example, France, Singapore, and even countries like Zimbabwe are listed as Republics. Most of us know that France has been labelled a true democracy by many, given its long history since the French Revolution. On the other hand, "democratic" Singapore is dominated by a single party, with the PAP in power for more than 40 years. Furthermore, Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, has seen election manipulation. Mugabe has also suppressed freedom of the press and freedom of speech, key tenets of democracy. With so many contrasting republics that proclaim themselves democracies, what and who is really a democracy?
In my opinion, as human nature is divergent, so will democracy continue to be divergent. There will never be a single system of democracy that every state adopts, due to differences in size, culture, amongst a multitude of other factors.
From the three republics above, it is possible to judge their successes, from France's liberalism, Singapore's economic stability and Zimbabwe's 10,500,000% (10.5 million percent) inflation. The similarities between successful democracies seems to be a good structure and system of governance, with capable leaders at the helm.
Ultimately, the success of a government depends on whether the state can prosper. With the right type of democracy and competent people, democracy and create stability for a country, no matter where or what type of democracy it is.
For example, France, Singapore, and even countries like Zimbabwe are listed as Republics. Most of us know that France has been labelled a true democracy by many, given its long history since the French Revolution. On the other hand, "democratic" Singapore is dominated by a single party, with the PAP in power for more than 40 years. Furthermore, Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, has seen election manipulation. Mugabe has also suppressed freedom of the press and freedom of speech, key tenets of democracy. With so many contrasting republics that proclaim themselves democracies, what and who is really a democracy?
In my opinion, as human nature is divergent, so will democracy continue to be divergent. There will never be a single system of democracy that every state adopts, due to differences in size, culture, amongst a multitude of other factors.
From the three republics above, it is possible to judge their successes, from France's liberalism, Singapore's economic stability and Zimbabwe's 10,500,000% (10.5 million percent) inflation. The similarities between successful democracies seems to be a good structure and system of governance, with capable leaders at the helm.
Ultimately, the success of a government depends on whether the state can prosper. With the right type of democracy and competent people, democracy and create stability for a country, no matter where or what type of democracy it is.
Advantages of democracy
Much about the shortcomings of the democracy have been addressed in the previous posts. Now I shall discuss about the advantage of democracy.
Firstly, democracy has a multi-party system. Different parties compete with one another to win seats in the parliament. The party which has the most number of seats will be the ruling party. However, once the ruling party loses the trust of the people, it would run the risk of being replaced by its opposition party. For example, if people are not satisfied with PAP, they can always vote for WP or SDP if they are better. This provides a system of checks and balances and ensure a constantly high level of standard in the ruling party.
Secondly,there is high level of accountability of government officials. As they are elected by the people, they must act as people's voice and perform their duties according to the will and wishes of the people. If any official is corrupted, he will be immediately stripped off his power as people lose trust in him.
Lastly, there is high level of transparency in the government. Citizens are kept constantly informed about what is happening in the country. Regular public meetings are also held to discuss social issues with general public. Transparency ensures that citizens know about the country, care about the country, and decide for the country. In comparison, in a country which does not practice democracy, many government decisions are kept unknown from the general public. As people do not understand about the government, they do not care about it. In the long run, people become extremely unsatisfied about the government and many of them migrate to other countries. This would lead to brain drain and slow down the development of the country.
A point that has been reiterated over and over again is the "tyranny of the majority". It is argued that democracy only satisfies the needs of the majority, but ignores that of the minority. However, it must be noted that we do not live in a utopian society, and different people have different opinions upon certain issues. Even the best form of government cannot satisfy the need of everyone. Democracy, as compared to other forms of government, is able to satisfy the needs of most number of people. Furthermore, the principle of democracy states that "the rights of the minority must be protected" and "people not in power must be allowed to organise and speak out". The minority is not totally deprived of their power. Thus, democracy cannot be said to be "tyranny of the majority".
Firstly, democracy has a multi-party system. Different parties compete with one another to win seats in the parliament. The party which has the most number of seats will be the ruling party. However, once the ruling party loses the trust of the people, it would run the risk of being replaced by its opposition party. For example, if people are not satisfied with PAP, they can always vote for WP or SDP if they are better. This provides a system of checks and balances and ensure a constantly high level of standard in the ruling party.
Secondly,there is high level of accountability of government officials. As they are elected by the people, they must act as people's voice and perform their duties according to the will and wishes of the people. If any official is corrupted, he will be immediately stripped off his power as people lose trust in him.
Lastly, there is high level of transparency in the government. Citizens are kept constantly informed about what is happening in the country. Regular public meetings are also held to discuss social issues with general public. Transparency ensures that citizens know about the country, care about the country, and decide for the country. In comparison, in a country which does not practice democracy, many government decisions are kept unknown from the general public. As people do not understand about the government, they do not care about it. In the long run, people become extremely unsatisfied about the government and many of them migrate to other countries. This would lead to brain drain and slow down the development of the country.
A point that has been reiterated over and over again is the "tyranny of the majority". It is argued that democracy only satisfies the needs of the majority, but ignores that of the minority. However, it must be noted that we do not live in a utopian society, and different people have different opinions upon certain issues. Even the best form of government cannot satisfy the need of everyone. Democracy, as compared to other forms of government, is able to satisfy the needs of most number of people. Furthermore, the principle of democracy states that "the rights of the minority must be protected" and "people not in power must be allowed to organise and speak out". The minority is not totally deprived of their power. Thus, democracy cannot be said to be "tyranny of the majority".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)