Truly Democratic?
In the modern world, democracy is the most used ideology in large number of countries. Very few countries hold on to a different kind of system, even the communist China is opening up their economy. However, are those countries truly democratic, or have democracy been modified according to what they want?
Something that comes along with democracy is freedom, people have the freedom to express themselves, to make their own choices. However I feel that when the USA had tried to spread their ideology during the Cold War period, freedom has been taken away from many people. Obviously, the communist countries were not given the freedom to choose their own ideology. In other words, USA had forced countries like the USSR to be like what they are. They even resorted to staging a Cold War. Although there was no direct conflict between the two superpowers, we all know they did clash in other ways like the Korean War. USA had assumed that democracy was the way to go, for the benefits of the countries, or rather for themselves. I feel that in a way they are not sticking to what demcracy promotes.
I would feel that sometimes rather than to stick to their own ideololgy, countries choose to do things for their own benefits. Even though Singapore declares itself to be a democratic nation, I would think there is soft authoritarianisn. We do hold elections where the majority will decide the ruling party, however, there is no freedom of expression. I feel that thi s is because the government itself is afraid of oppositions and have taken measures to prevent any rising oppositions. The USA had always sided with French in 1991 when the Algerian elections were being cancelled because they fear an islamic victory (Barber). However, in the first place, isn’t elections an important part of democracy?
As quoted from As T.E. Lawrence it is “better to let them do it imperfectly than to do it perfectly yourself, for it is their country … and your time is short.” However, it is rather obvious that rather than to hand the power to the people, most political parties clinched onto the such powers, afraid that too much powers in the hands of the people will result in opposition. The Singapore government is an example of such a case. For years, the People’s Action Party(PAP) has been the single ruling party of the country and in many ways, it controls the country and its people. Rather than to let the people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, the government controls even the media. Major newspaper are controlled by the Singapore Press Holdings(SPH) and both Mediacorp and SPH are owned by Temasek Holdings, which is controlled by the government. The government wants the people to agree with them, to think the way they want them to. Hence my claim about soft authoritatianisn in Singapore.
Other than Singapore, in countries like Monaco, the media is free to write whatever they want to, however, condemnation of the ruling party is strictly against the law (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ). This shows how the ruling party is afraid of opposition.
We can see that most countries are not truly democratic. The government do not act according to democracy but rather to their own benefits. What most countries are practising now are modified democracy. Especially with globalisation at hands, most countries are more concern about protecting their own interests and maintaining their own power. To be fair, I will agree that it is hard to be truly democratic, for too much power in the hands of the people might result in chaos, as not all will know what is best for their country. However, too much power in the hands of a small group of elites is not good either, for it is not fair for a small group to represent the voices of so many.
Reference:
Barber, B. R. (n.d.). Rebuilding Iraq:The Problem of Democracy. Retrieved from Benjamin R. Barber: http://www.benjaminrbarber.com/oped9.html
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices . (n.d.). Retrieved from US. Department of State: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78829.htm
