+- Ipoh Community Forums (https://forums.ipoh.com.my)
+-- Forum: News and Current Affairs (https://forums.ipoh.com.my/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: International News (https://forums.ipoh.com.my/forum-13.html)
+---- Forum: Politics (https://forums.ipoh.com.my/forum-55.html)
+---- Thread: America, China, and the Future of Democracy (/thread-8202.html)
America, China, and the Future of Democracy - superadmin - 07-08-2023
RE: America, China, and the Future of Democracy - superadmin - 07-08-2023
@zeissiez
Why democracy is overrated
I have been an expatriate in Singapore and China. China and Singapore have a similar government system. This is no coincidence, it’s the visit by Deng Xiaoping to Singapore in 1978 that inspired him to adopt the model in his country. They have an authoritarian system based on Socialism and meritocracy, and an economy based on state & private capitalism. There’s election in Singapore, but the PAP is so dominant and the media is so well controlled by it, that Singapore is effectively one party country. I was raised to believe in democracy. After living in Malaysia, Singapore, and China, I realised what I was taught was not entirely correct:
1. In any country, there are fewer intelligent people than less-intelligent people (a pyramid-shaped distribution). Since a democracy is a system where 3 idiots out-vote 1 smart person, democracy favours less-intelligent people’s decision.
2. Three preconditions for a democracy to function: a) no money politics. b) complete news freedom. c) a population with more smart people than less smart people. When money comes into politics, a) & b) are destroyed and a democracy becomes a plutocracy. There’s no country that satisfy c), not America, not even the Swedish, and of course not the Chinese or India which both have a majority living in the rural.
3. When a party wins an election by a small margin, the legitimacy of the win is low, because the result could go either way. When a party wins by a large margin, and the legitimacy of win is high, but it becomes a one party rule, because during the running of the government, the opposition has a small voice. So it’s self-contradictary.
4. In a democratic system, in the beginning, people choose the leader based on impression, not on the results. For example, no one knew how Trump would perform as a President, he did not even have experience in managing a town. It’s only AFTER he became a president that people knew about him, and damaged was already done. In a meritocratic system the leader has to work his way up and backed by a track record.
5. In a multiparty system, the country is divided right from the start. The sole aim of all parties is to win the next election. The parties bring along their supporter and people are then divided, and they waste a lot of time in constant fight and accusation. The US is currently at this state, it’s a divided nation. In Singapore and China. There’s much more political and social harmony. In democratic countries, political atmosphere often turn toxic. Racial issues are often used as weapon to gain support, resulting in less harmonious society.
6. Democratic countries face difficulties in implementing big changes. Plans, no matter how good they are, don’t get passed without a majority support. It’s natural for the opposition to not support any plans by the ruling party. Because their gain is our lost. As a result, many democratic countries suffered from stagnation. Democracy is a safety first approach, but the price to pay is very high. It’s akin to a person is afraid to fall, so he refuse to cycle or ride a motorbike, instead he choose to walk.
7. Mentality of the politicians. In many democratic countries, it’s difficult to get policies implemented, the politicians instead resort to superficial work to please the people, instead of digging down to real fundamental things that may not bear fruit in short time. The politicians in a democratic system tend to have a mentality of a contractor who serve a contract. The mentality of the leaders in Singapore and China are more akin to a father in a family. This is very important, only politicians with real sense of responsibility would sacrifice themselves for the people.
8. In many democratic countries, after an election, many policies are changed, and many projects are thrown away.
9. Lack of long term plans in democratic countries. When one party doesn’t know how long it will stay in power, and policies often get canceled if the opposition win, long term plans are scarce. In China and Singapore, there are long term plans in place. That’s why they grow more rapidly than democratic countries.
10. In a democratic country, how a citizen’s voice is heard is by the government? Every 4 or 5 years, citizens of a democratic country say: “I like you” or “I like someone else” in an election. That’s all. And there’s no guarantee the new government is better. In China, there’s a feedback system via a hotline by dialing #12345, where the citizen could use for complains. An officer is assign for every case and the response is timed. All cases are recorded in a central database. Most of the time problems are solved in a few days. The open cases are then analyzed in the background, if there are of high occurrence, a special task is set to look into the problem. The citizens will be called again after a specific time to check if their problems are solved. This way, the performance of each local government is accessed by the central government. This to me, is the new and advanced democracy for 21 century.
11. In Singapore and China. The government controls capitalism. While in many democratic countries, capitalism controls the government. Look at how the corporates have hijacked the political system in America. America is a corporate dictatorship where the Rich has TWO parties and the people effectively having NONE.
12. A government is more equipped with the knowledge of the domestic and international situation than normal citizens. They are more suited to make decisions than the people. People, especially young people and students, have limited knowledge of the real world, and easily misguided and instigated by foreign influence. Non Government Organizations (NGO) of the US, like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the British Mi6, have been funding oppositions in foreign countries to overthrow the regimes that don’t conform to their interests.
13. There’s a wrong assumption that a democracy is less corrupted due to existence of check and balance mechanism. Singapore is authoritarian, but it has one of the cleanest governments in the world. Similarly, it’s untrue to assume the abuse of power only exist in a authoritarian system. My democratic country had a dictator for 22 years. Indonesia had a dictator Suharto for 3 decades. In the US, there’s a dictator called the Deep State. Libya was the richest country under a dictator Gaddafi. After being “liberated” by NATO, the GDP now is just 1/3 of that under Gaddafi.
14. By giving the right for the people to vote, the rich corporates make the people forget they have one powerful tool: revolution. In a democratic system, after one party is changed, the money moves to the other side. The rich aren’t afraid of a democratic system. In China, the government has to perform, for if they have done badly, a revolution awaits. And the country start anew. Just like we have seen throughout the history of China.
Is the system in Singapore and China suitable for other countries? Definitely not. It would only suit countries with a Confucianism root like China or with traditional social values like the Scandinavians, in which the people regard a country is akin to a family, and the leader is akin to the father of a family. And it’s not suitable for societies which demands individual freedom above all else. What if the “father” happens to be a bad one? Few people know what is the system like in China. The Chinese have very long term plans. Every five years, they come out with a 5-year plan which is very detailed. These plans are advised by the various functional bodies in the country, using data and scientific ways, to cater for the need in the future. Everyone can see the details of the plan, and the rest of the 5 years, it’s just implementation. No one sits above this, not even the country leader. That’s why after one chairman is gone, the policies get carried on.
There are successful democratic countries like Norway and Sweden, because they got the socialism elements in their system: Free schooling, low medical cost, and the people have strong sense of social responsibility. Corruption is well controlled, and the government regulate capitalism tightly.
In summary, is democracy the best system? Definitely not. Is socialism the best system? Definitely not for most countries. What is the best system for most countries? The one which adapt to the actual needs instead of rigidly bounded to ideologies. If there’s a name for the ideology in China, it’s “Whateverworkism”. The biggest mistake the world has been making is when things don’t work, nothing is changed, and people still get trapped in the ideological dogma.