Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Politics

I was having a discussion about politics the other day (What? A serious conversation?!)

On Nov 18, HK held a District Council election. The big news was that the Democratic party took a pretty bad hit, losing in most of their constituencies. Unfortunately, they didn't lose in my district.

It's not that I have a problem with democracy, but I simply thought that the Democratic council candidate in my district was too focused on politics and not enough on the real issues of the district. To me, a district councilor should be more concerned about issues such as the environment, welfare, transportation conditions, public safety, etc. rather than party issues such as universal suffrage (which was basically the sole selling point of his platitude).

Anyways, those of you how know me know that I'm not an enthusiastic proponent of democracy. Do I think that people shouldn't be allowed to vote? Of course not. I have not qualms with the concept of democracy, but therein lies the problem: it's a CONCEPT. In theory, democracy is a wonderful idea, but like so many other concepts, theory and reality seldom match. In a real world situation, "Majority rules" often leads to less than ideal results.

For example, suppose that a family of 5 (2 parents, 3 small children) was given the following issue to vote on: Should the family eat vegetables and other healthy choices, or candy, popcorn and soda for all their meals? Chances are, the vote would come in 3 to 2 in favor of the junk food. And why? Because the children lacked the ability to make an educated decision on the matter.

And so it is with most societies. This probably sounds elitist, but I argue that a substantial part of the voting community is ill-equipped to make decisions that will influence the entire community *. Democracy needs to work under conditions where everyone involved can make an educated vote, rather than being told who and what to vote for. The voters need to be able to weigh the good and bad repercussions of their decisions instead of voting based rash and skin-deep reactions (something I has already played heavily in the Legislative Council election, aka The Battle of Mrs. Ip vs. Mrs. Chan...)

* The fact that Mr. Leung Kok Hung ("Long Hair") is a legislative councilor is nothing short of irrational voting. Honestly, what constructive action has he done since taking office?

5 comments:

kRiZcPEc said...

I think you omitted the time factor in your example.
As far as I know, democracy functions not like getting every one to vote on a particular issue and than sticks to the decisions of the majority for ever.
So in theory, if the choice made this time was not a wise one, voters will learn a lesson and vote smarter in future.

Teru said...

But with some bad decisions, once the damage is done it may be impossible to correct.

said...

ar kriz cpec講得好岩吖

不過其他野唔洗講
我可以肯定
如果你聽日投果位新的一葉
我地就絶交啦!
咁就係impossible to correct

kRiZcPEc said...

But with some bad decisions, once the damage is done it may be impossible to correct.
May be, but just like every one might make a mistake at one time or another, so will systems.
The question is, democracy does not guarrantee to be zero-mistake, it allow chance to correct them; where as in situation which government have total control, every one would be at their mercy. If the government make a mistake, there will not be likely to see anyone not imtimidated to point out. Do you think a ruler would be wise enough to discover their own mistake?

Teru said...

kRiZ cPEc,

Hmm, maybe I've been a bit misleading. All things considered, I do think that democracy is usually a good choice. But I wanted to voice my counterview to the people who treat it as the flawless, holy grail of politics.

才,

Ok, bye-bye.