Democracy: As Dr. Mahathir sees it ...

[qsaark]

1. Many people think that as soon as you accept democracy, then you will be practising democracy.

2. Unfortunately mere acceptance is not enough. It is not enough because everyone, from the top most person to the ordinary people, be they from a political party or of a nation, can find ways to abuse and frustrate the true democratic process. As a result we see democracies failing to work in most organisations or political parties and in many nations.

3. Basically democracy is about giving power to the majority. It is assumed that the majority knows what is best for the whole. The minority should therefore be prepared to accept the rule of the majority albeit after presenting opposing views and criticisms. The minority must be prepared to wait for the next election in order to make another bid.

4. In a mature democracy almost everyone respects the results of national elections. The majority forms the Government and the minority take their places in the legislature and try their best to influence policies and laws introduced by the majority Government. And so for the four or five years before the next elections, the legislature debates, approves or disapproves the proposals by the Government. But the minority and even the individual legislator may also move proposals or laws although in most instances they will not get through for lack of majority support. Playing their parts, both the majorty and the minority would contribute to the proper workings of a democratic Government.

5. Political parties love democracy as it seems to be fair to everyone. Anyone can bid for any place in the party, including the top most. That is the theory at least.

6. But the reality is that only certain people could aspire to lead because of the support of a substantial number of the members.

7. Ideally in a contest the one with the biggest number of supporters should win. Ideally as with Government the loser and his supporters should accept the decision of the majority.

8. Unfortunately the loser or losers may not want to accept the results. This can ultimately lead to the party being split and weakened.

9. The process may have been very democratic but the objective of choosing a leader by majority vote has not been achieved. The losers must also remember that when they win they same can happen to them. In other words a deocratic contest can only lead to the break-up of the party (I am speaking from experience).

10. I would like to cheer on the candidates who are contesting for any post anywhere through the democratic process. Obviously only one would win. If those who lose cannot accept the decision of the majority of the members, then it is better not to talk about democracy. You really do not know what democracy is about. *

* Of course I am assuming the contest is fair.

Source: Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad | Facebook

 

[gpit]

The article has probably dealt with formability too much and the essence too less.

The essence to form a government is about profit sharing, the essential driving force behind all political activities.

Democracy is a way to share profit. Despotism, authoritarian, socialism, etc. are others.

In every country, presidential candidates are nothing but representatives of interest groups, not the ordinary people.

In a mature democracy, constituents are not subject to the influence of foreign interest, and opposite parties overlap their interest in larger areas. The winning party won’t deliver a crushing damage to the interest of the losing party. One side is fully aware that the existence of the other side is for this side’s interest. Both sides are essentially in the same pants. A typical example is Republic party and Democratic party in USA.

In an immature democracy, foreign influence is rampant and blatant (such as in color revolutions), and one party wants to wipe out the other party (such as in Thailand).

A mature election in a mature democracy normally witnesses a low turn-out, say about 60%. An immature election, in mature democracy or immature democracy, has high turn-out, say 85-99%, as high emotion, not rationality, is involved.

In all cases, ordinary people usually can do nothing but to join an existing wagon. In all cases, elected leader can “forget” his promises and betray his/her people for his side of interest. Thus abuse the system and hijack the whole nation for a period of time. Adolf Hitler is an example.

As far as a country is concerned, a country does not necessary become weak if it does not adopt democracy in a particular form; it doesn’t necessary become strong if it dose adopt democracy in a particular form. The people of a country do not necessary become educated, happy and rich if they do accept democracy in a particular form; nor would they be uneducated, weak or miserable if they do not accept democracy in a particular form.

This is because a good system always fits to the social soil of the country, and can provide the environment that the country can move forward, and is supported materially by the available resources from the country. This is why Western style of democracy is relatively successful, as they were not subject to foreign influence while the democracy was in formation (such as UK, USA), and they had/have rich resources to support their system. A typical example is UK, who accumulated vast wealth from all over the world through pillage, war, and slavery. That wealth provided a pivotal support to UK democracy. In the States, early democracy was only limited to white men with properties, because total no democracy was not the tradition of the early colonists, but pan-democracy was not, either. In addition, there were no resources to support pan-democracy. As said before, more importantly, a system is about profit sharing. It did not make sense to share profit with American Indians or non-whites: they were the people from whom profits were to be made.

It is very important to study history laterally (which is what the article is doing), and vertically, which I provided in part of the last paragraph.

 

[ek_indian]

@gpit:

Soem very intesting points. I guess these are your own thoughts.
However a from my side.