Why do we need Democracy?

[Dr Opinion]

There is an exciting possibility that there is a new paradigm coming out of China... the hybridization of a Single Party State and the Free Market is something never before seen or really contemplated by the West... except, maybe, in Singapore.  

We've been conditioned by coldwar propaganda into thinking that "Democracy" == "Free Market Economics" == "Cool Consumer Items", but maybe that's not true...

Democracy is not a significant factor in the free market. Democracy is not about growth, it is not about advancement. Democracy is a braking system, it is about checks and balances, reducing the power of the leadership, and allowing a state to self-correct if a dictator gets control.

Why do we make such a big deal of Democracy? It's not all it's cracked up to be. In every so-called "Democratic" society there are those who are qualified to partake in Democracy, and those who are not. For example, in the US, millions of people who have lived there for decades, who have contributed blood, sweat and tears to the Nation, and who are critical to the success of the Economy, are referred to by the State as "illegal immigrants" ... a convenient technicality for denying these people participation in Democracy. Similarly, Classical Rome and Greece, the birthplaces of Western Democracy, were economies based on slavery: of course, all the People could vote, but slaves and foreigners aren't People, right? Similarly again, the Chinese Communist Party is a democratic organization, in that within it's ranks democracy is used to select the holders of posts and to ratify or dispute decisions within the CCP. Ordinary citizens cannot vote, but they can join the party, and their cadre can participate in the internal Democratic party processes... Is this analagous to US Citizens being allowed to vote for a pre-deteremined congressional candidates offered by the Party, but then being denied the right to participate directly in a congressional debate or vote?  

Rapid and significant societal advancement and growth requires *centralized* power, under the control of a benevolent dictatorship, not two parties competing to drain the surplus before finishing their terms, not two parties destroying the long-term projects of the other as they jostle back and forth, in and out of control.

Since Benevolent, Free Market, Growth-Focussed dictatorship has worked so well in Singapore, is it possible that it will work just as well in China? And that Democracy will turn out to be, to quote Churchill, "... the worst possible way
of governing a country"...  

[cactus]

Dr. Opinion,
I believe Churchill went on to say that democracy was indeed the worst possible way to govern a country --except for all the other types of government.

Singapore's benevolent dictatorship certainly pumped up the economic numbers but that's not to say it could not have happenned under a democratic regime --Taiwan prospered after democratisation, the Phillipinnes did not.

But at ground level, I see in benevolently dictated countries, even the proserous ones like Singapore, a dissatisfaction not reflected in economic statistics or media. People may be 4 times wealthier here than in the Phillipinnes. But the average Filipino I meet is happier and feels more free than the average Singaporean. I'd choose the latter, if given a choice.

[Dr Opinion]

You may well be right. I'm really just throwing it out there to chew on.  

[PhilM]

If a country holds an election; but by one means of other forces all to vote for just one man we call it a Dictatorship.

If a country holds an election where you have the freedom of choice to vote for one of two individuals we call it a Democracy!

In  both cases once in power the "Elected Leader" invariably ignores the wishes of the general population to do that which enriches themselves, their families, and their cronies most.

In reality the definition of Democracy does not have much to do with the types of Government we now have in the West. At the end of the day all current Leaders and Governments are Authoritatian, human nature being the underlying cause.

[Dr Opinion]

Maybe you have to be authoritarian to get anything done.... Imagine trying to run a football team by democracy! How about a platoon? Or a corporation?  

The problem with Dictatorship is that while the gains are amazing if the leader is a visionary (for example, LKY), if he is incompetant (and most leaders are, per the Dilbert Principle  ), then they can trash a country completely, and leave it ruined for decades or even centuries.

Democracy is simply a way of preventing Dictators, in order to mitigate the risk of bad management at the expense of the chance of rapid, centrally directed growth -- the type of growth the USSR demonstrated in the glory days of Sputnik, in Singapore, and that which is being demonstrated in the PRC.

This use of Democracy is similar to the idea of investing in a growth stock but purchasing put options to cover the downside.... it reduces the risk, but also reduces the net growth of your position. The contrary idea that ordinary citizens actually have some kind of "mob rule" participation in the running of, say, Great Britain, is a complete farce.  

[doorman]

Dr Opinion,

Great question!.  You know I travel to China often and I find myself thinking how on earth could you possibly manage a country like China any other way.

We may not like it, or agree with it, or want to live in it, but China has been relatively stable for a number of years (decades).

So I think it depends a lot on the history and the state of the country.  Starting with a communist/totalitarian state to get things going and then moving into an open free market democracy actaully may be the way.

I lived in HK for many years and always thought that the fact that the then british government did not have to win over people for elections meant they could made the decisions that count - including the difficult ones.

Very thought provoking indeed.

[Dr Opinion]

Here's a thought: If a Communist State enforces family-unit-level accountability instead of the collective, embraces a Free Market, then passes reforms to allow entrepreneurs into the Party, yet maintains a Single Party System, has it become a Fascist State?

[Joseph27]

A benevolent dictator has a much easier job than an elected leader and can do a much better job in many cases. US foreign policy - especially during Clinton's reign was so high and mighty about pushing democracy above all else without taking into account or caring about the societal consequences of a forced regime that stands in contradiction to very natural of the beast.

One one hand socities had to remove their old regimes and elect new leaders who would nevertheless have force democratic principals on their people.  Sound stupid - IT IS.  I believe Indonesia is a classic example of a country not being ready for fully fledged democracy but there they were in the state dept dribbling their usual lines.

[cactus]

Democracy in the idealistic sense has never existed anymore than pure communism ever did.
In my experience in a democratic country like Canada, the only time the will of the people was strongly respected was under minority governments --and even then, the people's will can be hijacked by this or that minority faction.
But even when popular will is ignored, the mere ability to express dissenting opinions is intself a valuable safeguard against abuse.

What does make democracy superior are in my opinion the two following details:

1. Granted that in most democratic governments, power is oligarchical and driven by interest groups. But if the leaders abuse their power, mismanage or follow the agenda of interest groups too closely, there still exists the possibility of their replacement. This helps keep abuses in check.

Indeed, I could argue that if the KMT and CCP took turns governing China and were each booted out of power every ten years or so, China would be a less corrupt, better run society now.

2. The strong element of citizen participation and freedom of expression means that abuses can be rooted out long before the rot can destroy the entire ruling party or country.

Having said that, there are certain cultural prerequisites for a democratic constitution to work properly. Most important is a deference to the rule of law, rather than to the rule of men. Centuries of the latter can be difficult for a societies to unlearn.

[This message has been edited by cactus (edited 01-10-2002).]