Concluding Democracy---A political system ideal only theoretically?

All this while, we have been discussing democracy as being the best political system theoretically in that in terms of the constitution, the idea of an independent judiciary, the notion of "rule by the people", the idea of democratization etc, democracy may seem to stand out the most relative to many other political systems, but there is a catch to it, in that do all these "benefits of democracy" work only philosophically and invalidated when put into action, or do they work both on paper and in action? This is the core tenet of the discussion which I am going to hold today.

Firstly, we see that on paper, democracy seems to promise the notion of rule by the people where the government's policies have to follow the majority of the population such that the course of progress within the country is largely influenced by the main population. But there is a catch, when such principle is put into action, we see that the notion of "Rule by the people" no longer stand, but instead "devolved" into a more derogatory term of "tyranny of the majority". We see that the nature of humans had ultimately resulted in their "manipulation" and "exploitation" of democracy's core ideas, such that democracy had degraded to nothing more than mob rule where "51% of the people are right and the other 49% of the people are wrong" as quoted from Thomas Jefferson. Here, it is evident that democracy does not promise the "mutual consensus" among people as seen on principle, but rather, it seems to promote the idea that the majority is necessarily correct while the minority is necessarily wrong.

This false exploitation of democracy terms had of course led to many problems as discussed earlier on by many of us such as the LTTE Crisis in Sri Lanka where the government made up by the majority Sinhalese devised policies catered predominantly to the Sinhalese, through acts such as the University Admission Act where Sinhalese were given utmost priorities to access to elite tertiary education, as well as the Language act where the government decreed in 1956 that Sinhalese will be the only National Language, sidelining the less prominent (but still useful to the minorities) Tamil. This obvious sidelining of the minorities and promoting the majority once again affirmed the notion of "Tyranny of the Majority" where the Sinhalese Government's actions seemed to reflect that the majority is correct while the minority is wrong. This obvious tyranny of the majority had inevitably led to social and political instability where in decades the political arena is filled with assassinations where countless of ministers, legislates and presidents injured/killed by the minority. It had also led to the serious disruption of social order where just a few days ago, the minorities had led off a series of bombing of public transport, causing instability in the society where the members of the public are constantly on tenterhooks over their public safety.

As such, it is very evident that indeed democracy may seem to promote peace and stability through their notion of "led by the people" but in reality, democracy had truly caused more harm than good because of Men's exploitation of the very nature of democracy such that it had degraded to nothing more than tyranny of the majority, inevitably resulting in serious socio-political disorder too.

Next, the idea of judicial independence had often been perceived as an integral part of democracy and the notion of constitution being strong (in that any changes made to the constitution will be highly unlikely) may have promised the prospects of maintaining the socio-political status quo of peace and stability, but is the judicial system really independent from the various political entities in reality? Is the constitution as omnipotent as perceived?

Indeed, we see that the constitution in a democratic country may "guarantee" some forms of political neutrality of the judiciary, but in reality, this is not often the case as seen from many democratic states. Mahathir was able to sack the supreme judges in 1988 (Together with the Yang-di Pertuan Agong) and was also involved in the recent controversy of "Judge Fixing". Malaysia is a democratic state, and its constitution did originally forbid the Judicial entity from being influenced by political entities, but this constitution law was later revoked by Mahathir to the extent that he was vested with the ultimate power to select and approve judges in his own course. Evidently, the judiciary in then Malaysia was definitely not independent from the Political Arena of Malaysia.

Now, this goes to show that because of the nature of Humans such that Men will twist the system in such a way that democracy can benefit his/her own future, they are still able to manipulate the original constitution, and with a super-majority, they can still alter the constitution at will. Here, it is clear that in reality, the constitution is not as omnipotent as it seeks to be. Indeed, we see that the government has to conform to the constitution set in place originally, but the crux of the problem here is that the government is also able to alter the constitution at will too as long as they have a 2/3 majority which is commonly present in many democratic countries where the opposition is too weak. Malaysia's UMNO for example, had been dominating Malaysian politics since Independence Day, such that even Mahathir could alter the constitution at will, sacking the judges and placing his own judges in power. Such actions truly defy the nature of democracy where the Government is perceived to be ruled by the people, but the very fact that political antics of changing the constitution, denying judicial independence, had to a large extent shifted away from the fundamental definition of democracy in being "Rule by the people", to a "Rule by the Governmet".

This is the true problem of representative democracy in that the political party put in place in power by the people can have such overwhelming power such that they can alter the constitution, remove the idea of judicial independence etc, and by being the only omnipotent body in government, and as what others have posted earlier on, it results in the government susceptible to being authoritarian or even totalitarian. Here, we do need to see that on paper, democracy forces the government to conform to the constitution and it promises that the judiciary has to be independent, but all these are ultimately premised on the basis of a strong opposition, such that the constitution is an omnipotent being, something that will not be changed at will by the dominant party (With a strong opposition in hand). Sadly though, this idea of a strong opposition is not seen as a common case in many democratic countries, in fact, many "democratic countries" are dominated by one single and strong party which often, through political means and strong support, are able to dominate the political arena by altering the constitution at will, where Gerrymandering, political incentives, political fraud etc had been known and established tactics played by democratic parties in a bid to win elections. This, is therefore the second problem of democracy, in that theoretically, we see that democracy promises that the government has to work in accordance to the people's wishes as well as the need to conform to the constitution, but in reality, this is not often the case as we see that Men's overwhelming political hunger had led to them manipulating the democratic system, such that they can garner the 2/3 majority needed to change the constitution at will, ultimately dominating the political arena.

This as a result, led to many "democratic countries" with only one single, dominant political faction that is seemingly omnipotent, and almost impossible to get them out of position as they, through democratic processes, are able to change the constitution at will, thereby rendering the opposition weak and useless, unable to serve as a counter-force to the dominant party, resulting in the country susceptible to political dominance by a single party and with no counter-power to balance the power in the country, the idea of transparency of the government, the idea of safeguarding the people's interests as well as the notion of keeping the government in check will not be in place, making the government susceptible to corruption, authoritarianism, omnipotent etc.

For short, this whole chunk can be concluded in a short, sweet statement, in that Democracy is no longer an end which Men move to, but rather, a political tool for a political agenda for dominating the political arena, or simply put, it is a means to a selfish end. Indeed, we see that democracy may work out well in principle and in theory, but ultimately we have to understand that all these will not come true when put in place due to the very nature of Men of being power-hungry, manipulative, the lack of a strong opposition in parliament and the dim prospects of having an entirely independent judiciary system in a democratic country had made democracy unable to offer what it can promise when put into practice.

Towards this, what are your views? Do you agree with the notion that democracy works well theoretically, but not when put into place? Before concluding the post, I shall bring up Stuart Chase (19th century economist) famous quote "Democracy, as had been said of Christianity, has never really ben tried." Ultimately, democracy is a dream, something promised, but never done.

Cx