When is democracy not enough?
A day before the Philippines celebrated its 114th Independence Day, Filipinos were told that democracy is not enough. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who was conferred an Honorary Professor Title by the University of Santo Tomas on June 11, delivered a speech critical of Philippine democracy.
Mahathir said, "Government of the people, by the people and for the
people would result in a stalemate, in no Government at all, in
anarchy." Why? Because he believes that the majority is not intelligent.
And if the majority lacks intelligence, how can the people govern
themselves? How can an illiterate farmer ever win an argument against an
autocratic landlord? (I do like what Benjamin Franklin said: "Democracy
is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a
well-armed lamb contesting the vote!")
Mahathir, a medical doctor who transformed a poor Malaysia into an
economic dynamo in Southeast Asia, has this prognosis of the ills of the
Philippines: too much democracy. Using Malaysia as an example, he
debunked the notion that democracy is the answer to poverty. Noting that
democracy has failed to bring progress in many cases, he extolled the
economic successes of Malaysia as the result of the sacrifice of some of
the liberalism of democracy while the government focuses all its
attention to the problems of poverty and challenges of development. He
freely admits that Malaysia is not a liberal democracy. According to
him, "We see democracy principally as providing an ‘easy way’ to change
Governments. No revolution, no civil wars, no Arab spring. Just vote and
the Government will be brought down or reelected according to the
wishes of the people."
IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS
Former dictator President Ferdinand E. Marcos had the same idea. Remember the government slogan, "Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan?"
For the progress of the country, discipline is needed. Marcos declared:
"This nation can be great again!" But the premise was to sacrifice a
messy Philippine democracy for organized and strong governance under a
strongman -- Marcos.
Majority of the Filipinos believed President Marcos, easily swayed by the fear of Muslim insurgency in the South and by the New People’s Army in Luzon and the Visayas. And so freedom was sacrificed for stability and progress. What did the Philippines gain? After the martial law years, the nation slid down the slippery slope of autocratic rule to a pit of poverty. Our problems were compounded by deterioration of the rule of law marked by human rights violations, the strengthening of cronyism, entrenchment of insurgency groups and other armed groups such as those under warlords. The list of ills goes on and on.
Mahathir also spoke of corruption, when a reactor to his talk spoke of the years of the dictatorship. Blaming the dictatorship on our democratic process, he said, "Marcos was elected…your choosing him was still a democratic procedure, look what happens when you make a wrong choice." Someone should remind him that if the democratic process of elections had been in place, Marcos could not have been president after the end of his second term. The loss of democratic elections ensured that we would have the same man as head of state for decades, for better or for worse.
The good doctor did admit that, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." However, if I read his statement right, he seems to believe that the power-holder can be steered to remain on the right path if people remind him that his obligation is to serve the people. Mahathir said, "if one is frequently reminded that one day one will lose power and when that happens, others will hound you and make life miserable for you, that might help you overcome temptations." I wonder how that would be possible if the people did not have the right to change their leaders thru a democratic electoral process? If the people could only follow the dictates of a strong ruler, honing their ability to be disciplined as they bowed to the will of the powerful strong man? If citizens did not have the freedom to speak their minds?
I do agree with Dr. Mahathir when he states that, "Democracy works only when the people understand the limitations of democracy. When people think only of the freedoms of democracy and know nothing of the implied responsibilities, democracy will not bring the goodness that it promises. Instead it will result only in instability and instability will not permit development to take place and the people to enjoy the benefits of freedom and the rights that democracy promises."
Majority of the Filipinos believed President Marcos, easily swayed by the fear of Muslim insurgency in the South and by the New People’s Army in Luzon and the Visayas. And so freedom was sacrificed for stability and progress. What did the Philippines gain? After the martial law years, the nation slid down the slippery slope of autocratic rule to a pit of poverty. Our problems were compounded by deterioration of the rule of law marked by human rights violations, the strengthening of cronyism, entrenchment of insurgency groups and other armed groups such as those under warlords. The list of ills goes on and on.
Mahathir also spoke of corruption, when a reactor to his talk spoke of the years of the dictatorship. Blaming the dictatorship on our democratic process, he said, "Marcos was elected…your choosing him was still a democratic procedure, look what happens when you make a wrong choice." Someone should remind him that if the democratic process of elections had been in place, Marcos could not have been president after the end of his second term. The loss of democratic elections ensured that we would have the same man as head of state for decades, for better or for worse.
The good doctor did admit that, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." However, if I read his statement right, he seems to believe that the power-holder can be steered to remain on the right path if people remind him that his obligation is to serve the people. Mahathir said, "if one is frequently reminded that one day one will lose power and when that happens, others will hound you and make life miserable for you, that might help you overcome temptations." I wonder how that would be possible if the people did not have the right to change their leaders thru a democratic electoral process? If the people could only follow the dictates of a strong ruler, honing their ability to be disciplined as they bowed to the will of the powerful strong man? If citizens did not have the freedom to speak their minds?
I do agree with Dr. Mahathir when he states that, "Democracy works only when the people understand the limitations of democracy. When people think only of the freedoms of democracy and know nothing of the implied responsibilities, democracy will not bring the goodness that it promises. Instead it will result only in instability and instability will not permit development to take place and the people to enjoy the benefits of freedom and the rights that democracy promises."
KEY ELEMENT
However,
educating the people on their responsibilities as citizens -- a
necessary ingredient for a democracy -- is the way to go. Not
sacrificing their civil liberties and improving their discipline to obey
the dictates of a government that they cannot question.
Dr. Mahathir spoke of the loss of moral values in a "tumultuous world, in a world of political turmoil, in a world of economic turmoil, in a world of social turmoil". I was truly bothered when he attributed the collapse of morality to democracy and the freedom enjoyed by a few at the expense of the whole community. And I thought: Was it democracy that was instrumental to the deterioration of our values? Or was it the powerlessness of citizens to react to the abuses of leaders in an environment where protests are severely punished? In what kind of an environment can citizens do something to prevent human trafficking, drug dealing, corruption -- in a state where they have the civil liberties to act or under a regime where the rulers can ruthlessly stop any protest?
At the end of the day, I go back to Winston Churchill’s famous statement: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
We in the Philippines have tried several forms of government in the last 50 years -- from representative democracy to dictatorship to an autocratic parliamentary system and now back to representative democracy. We know, from personal and direct experience, what worked and what didn’t work. That former President Marcos was overthrown and exiled, that the promise of a Great Nation went pffft, that the Philippines fell from the most advanced country in Southeast Asia to the Sick Man of the region -- all of these are indicators that prove the wisdom of Churchill.
I do admit that former PM Mahathir is spot-on in his analysis of the problems of Philippine democracy. But is less democracy the solution to our problems? I end with a quote from George Bernard Shaw in his Maxims for Revolutionists: "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." Which would you prefer, I wonder?
Dr. Mahathir spoke of the loss of moral values in a "tumultuous world, in a world of political turmoil, in a world of economic turmoil, in a world of social turmoil". I was truly bothered when he attributed the collapse of morality to democracy and the freedom enjoyed by a few at the expense of the whole community. And I thought: Was it democracy that was instrumental to the deterioration of our values? Or was it the powerlessness of citizens to react to the abuses of leaders in an environment where protests are severely punished? In what kind of an environment can citizens do something to prevent human trafficking, drug dealing, corruption -- in a state where they have the civil liberties to act or under a regime where the rulers can ruthlessly stop any protest?
At the end of the day, I go back to Winston Churchill’s famous statement: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
We in the Philippines have tried several forms of government in the last 50 years -- from representative democracy to dictatorship to an autocratic parliamentary system and now back to representative democracy. We know, from personal and direct experience, what worked and what didn’t work. That former President Marcos was overthrown and exiled, that the promise of a Great Nation went pffft, that the Philippines fell from the most advanced country in Southeast Asia to the Sick Man of the region -- all of these are indicators that prove the wisdom of Churchill.
I do admit that former PM Mahathir is spot-on in his analysis of the problems of Philippine democracy. But is less democracy the solution to our problems? I end with a quote from George Bernard Shaw in his Maxims for Revolutionists: "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." Which would you prefer, I wonder?
Comments