In Democracy We Believe

“The right to speech includes the right to sing. So you can’t stop me from singing.”

“Oh, and you think that Singapore has such a right?”

“It’s still a member of the U.N.”

“Ah. Well, so is Turkmenistan. And Iraq and......”

“So you’re willing to be dragged down to that level?”

“Well, I wouldn’t mind, actually.”

“Why?”

“I rather have one man (on top) complaining to everyone than everyone complaining to one man. It shows the stupidity of humanity.”

I swung around to face this friend of mine. He was an intellectual, and probably had gathered more overall knowledge over the years than myself, but boy was I going to shoot him down.

“You know what? I rather have many people complaining to one guy on top and creating problems, because I know how it’s like to live in a place where it’s legally not allowed to complain. I’m sorry, but living here (in Singapore), you don’t know what you’re talking about.”




Democracy, as I recall, used to be a buzzword. Others were too: Freedom, justice, equality. Words that were symbols of hope, for a better life, or at least a life with more personal liberty, more self-control. No more big shots dictating what we the people were allowed or not allowed to do. A wonderful dream; idealistic, but wonderful nevertheless.

How far ‘tis then, that things have come along since those days! No more, it seems, do people want these things. Slowly but surely, these ideals are becoming a dying breed, a distaste to those who see it more as an inconvenience than anything else. It’s slow, it’s inefficient, it doesn’t get things done. We appear to be entering a new era of values that are as complex as ever, but with a growing number of people favouring once-hated systems of strong, one-or-few-men-rule where things can be done quickly, since you don’t need to consider the needs of the ‘ignorant majority’ any more.

It’s not that new, really.

Detractors of democracy do have a point. It is slow. It can be inefficient, due to the simple fact that you have to consider have many people’s opinion as possible for a true democracy to take place, whether it’s in an office or a nation-state. And in the fast-moving, ever-growing societies of today, democracy can be seen to slow things down, particularly in the economy. A simple comparison of the Eurozone vs China can demonstrate this: the centralised Beijing government can manoeuvre much faster than its European counterparts simply due to its authoritarian nature, in which the leaders can decide and act immediately on policies or strategies that are deemed to be most beneficial to the country, without the annoying need to argue at the top of their voices in a hostile parliament. No wonder, then, that certain parties are beginning to question the viability of democracy as a system to run civilisation.

Like I’ve mentioned, however, it’s not the first time these views have been presented. A look at the previous century confirms this. Perhaps the most famous example is Hitler and his Third Reich, which, as some of us are aware of, had the support of his people (Japan’s World War II-era government is another example). It may have been a dictatorship, but he was initially voted in constitutionally. No big surprise - Germans were sick of democracy as their democratic governments never managed to accomplish anything worthwhile. With their economy in tatters after the Wall Street crash and morale low, they backed Hitler to be a strong leader to pull the nation and his people forward.

Of course, we now know how that particular plan worked out. And therein lies my contention.

The main problem with either one person, or several, holding the power to decide the lives and fates of a country, society or civilisation, is that eventually it becomes less about the wants of the backers and supporters, but instead the whims of those few people. And when that happens, any of the original purpose of having this sort of system is defeated; while you may remove the strain of having a democracy so as to make the right decisions quickly, it also removes the decisions themselves, since these entrusted elite have no reason to follow anyone’s wishes any more - they have all the control they need or want. Or even, even if (and that’s a big ‘if’) all this doesn’t happen, and the ‘big guys at the top’ never become self-serving, we’d still be giving up any sort of control over our destinies to them. No longer are we allowed to make decisions in anything that may concern us. And for what? A better economy? Faster technological advances? Is that the definition of a better life these days?

Something that is hard to deny is that, throughout history, the majority of people tend to have generally lower intelligence and are less capable to make the best decisions as compared to if the top few are put in charge. Democracy, then, risks allowing a state of mob rule where actions and choices lean towards short-term, easy-way-out ones, rather than ones that can promise long-term viability. But even then, the choices are made are the people’s own, whether good or bad, and shouldn’t that be the most important thing? It is important to remember we are born with equal natural rights, and have a right to an equal stake in society. This means that we also have an equal stake in the route that society takes. And when we start to sacrifice that for material gains or manufactured progress, we are no more far-sighted than the ‘ignorant majority’ that we sometimes shun. I’ve used this quote before, and I will reiterate it again:

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

Humanity may sometimes be stupid when we bicker about stupid, petty little issues, and hold up important matters until kingdom come. But humanity is dead when we give up our most basic rights, just so we can ‘move a little faster’. And when humanity dies......what are we?