democracy - solution or problem

22 october 2010

Is a democracy that makes a majority of its decisions by having a party win by just a small margin each time a true democracy? Each time I read the papers, or online news articles related to American politics, I see not a democracy that is a liberal and free, but a country that is so divided in almost everything, with people that do not know what they want, people who are swayed to and fro by the will and tongue of those persuasive and charismatic politicians. Obama, despite winning the election for some time now, still seems to be campaigning for the support of his people. Now being slammed by the public for an all-time high unemployment rate that appears to be still rising, he faces endless sieges by the opposition for having an ineffective economic policy. In the end, the question is does a 2-party political environment still work?

Take the health care reform for e.g., how is it possible that no republican voted for it? Is it possible that that policy is so bad till no republican actually think that it is possibly beneficial to the people, or is it just a fight between the democrats and republicans? In that circumstance, are the senators or congressmen making decisions for the good of the people, or just for the benefits of the party? On the other hand, can you really fault them for doing the latter?

Occasionally, I do like to read the news about the American politics. I’ll go to the cnn website to do that. I guess I’m curious to see whose side I’ll take if I hold the green card at the certain point in time. I read the comments at the bottom of the articles, as interested in the public’s responses. The comments are so diverse – some cursed the Obama administration; others think he’s just stuck with resolving the mess left by Bush. They cite examples of economic policies, what they thought Obama should do in this crisis, what they thought Obama failed to do. I can’t help but wonder if they do know what they are talking about, or the stuff they spoke about is simply a result of media influence and facts distortion by the two parties. I can’t help but wonder if they have given sufficient time to the president they elected, considering that economics is something in which decisions made or policies taken often need quite a significant time to take effect.

Yes in this climate, perhaps there is no room for patience, with a growing number of people finding difficult to put bread on the table. But with economics, I don’t think there’s much a choice but to wait. Otherwise, you’ll just risk instability which does no good to the country either. Maybe I’m not too educated or well-versed in this field, but I think no amount of education can help make the perfect economic analysis that everyone craves. It’s just about making decisions that are based on statistics and with always an element of luck involved (though one can do his best to lower the odds). Moreover, to make matters worse, the decisions are made must produce short-term benefits since voters are only generally only concerned about the immediate benefits that they get. Also, I think there are just too many parties involved, too many things that are unforeseeable. After all, who can predict a euro debt crisis a few years’ back? Nor did anyone fathom that AIG, probably one of the largest insurance companies in the world, requires a rescue from the government or risk bankruptcy otherwise.

Coming back to the Singapore scene, I realize the freedom and liberty that the left wing preaches for may not be entirely good for the nation. I suppose unlike the U.S. whose policies other countries would willingly seek to adapt to, Singapore can’t withstand the instability that others might have put up with. Especially after one looks at the U.S., England, we do have to recognize that a 2-party or multiple-party system may not work as well. In a recent interview, Lee Hsien Loong mentioned that a good government should plan for the future 10 years, or even 20 years ahead, and not merely till the next election. Indeed, is a multiple-party democracy the best form of governance for the people?

Forgive me if I sound like a PAP supporter, but I thought this line of thinking flows logically. In a way, the country can sustain such form of governance simply because it’s small; I think the room for corruption is smaller because it’s just easier to catch. Not to the discredit of LKY, but I think even if you placed a younger him in Obama’s position, I don’t think he would have an easier time changing the U.S. I think it’s simply more difficult governing not only a more educated people, but a wealthier and more powerful bunch of people who would resort to any means to stay in power. Think: if Obama was to cut military or NASA spending, how would the weapons manufacturer react to this? Sadly I think running for presidency in the United States of America seems to be some gigantic marketing campaign that requires huge amount of capital. The sad thing is this will always work. It’s like how PAP garner support by providing more incentives prior election. We all know this is part of their strategy, but we would willingly tag along.

Finally, I do note that everything I said here might be an over-generalisation, or resulted from a gradual influence of the education provided here. After all, I have not travelled much to see the world, and relied mainly on websites and forum comments to arrive to a conclusion. Yet, i think if you look beyond the possibility of biasness on my part, my point is that we do have much to be thankful for and not needlessly complain about stuff. We do have to realize that there are certainly areas in which the government can improve in, but know that no government is perfect. There may be someone siphoning money off the treasury as I write, but this I know, at the very least there are people really working in the best interests of the country (albeit drawing a huge salary from our tax collections). Finally, the fact that they did finally arrive at a skyline unique for our nation implies something must have been done right.