A Democratic Government is Not as Desirable as it Has Been Made Out to Be

In this day and age, the issue of democracy is one that the average human being finds himself inevitably confronted with. From the disaster wrought at Tiananmen Square, to the sweeping democratic changes breaking down the Iron Curtain of Eastern Europe, people all over the world have seen what the desire for democracy can result in. Yet, as time passes, what has become of these newly formed democracies? Is a democratic government really as desirable as it has been made out to be?

At first glance, one would easily understand the reasons behind such thoughts. Warfare and strife punctuated the European scene following the collapse of Communism. Democratic governments were corrupt and devious in action. Election for leaders and for a government fell under the shroud of accusations of bribery and vote-rigging. Where democracy created openness, there was born the strong nationalistic spirit that cleaved Yugoslavia apart. The government, trying to work at solving the problem, was hampered by inefficiency to the need for preserving a democratic image and shed it as Serbia pressed in on Croatia. A democratic government, as opposed to the Communist tie that suppressed these violent sentiments by force, was showing itself to be definitely undesirable.

What was democracy made out to be? To many, especially those under other systems of government, a democratic government was one that would allow openness and freedom of expression. It would rule by the support of the people and enable direct or indirect participation in the running of the country by way of elections where the masses chose their own leaders. From the European experience, these images were never truly fulfilled.

However, one must look at how others have perceived a democratic government. A democratic government, such as that in the United States, was made out to be an institution that defended a person's fundamental liberties, ruled by a mandate from the people, acted for the good of the nation and had inbuilt checks and balances to ensure its foundation would never be undermined. In this case, a democratic government was as desirable as it seemed.

But, even in the United States, the democratic government is not totally desirable. It is slow to act due to the laborious processes involved in passing Bills. Furthermore, there are more democratic governments that are failures in living up to their portrayed image. Weak democratic governments can be seized and manipulated by individuals as was Peru's fate under Alberto Fujimori. Democratic governments are unstable and prone to lots of coup attempts and political assassinations. Ultimately, the people suffer, as the impoverished thousands in democratic India will testify to.

If a democratic government were as desirable as it was made out to be, China, Russia and Cuba would not have sought the alternative of Communism. A democratic government, in reality, promotes capitalism, profiteering and corruption. Its meritocratic standards ultimately favour the rich intellectual at the expense of the poor commoner. Miscarriages of justice by democratic governments have even made people see democracy as a regression to feudalism. Such a government would be thoroughly undesirable.

On the other hand, one cannot criticise a democratic government without first realising that people's perceptions may be wrong. A democratic government was never one made to guarantee efficiency in passing laws. It never promised to be immune from insurgent attempts to gain power, nor did it portray an image that 'All men are equal' to the extent of being a classless, faceless society. A democratic government is what it is - a living, working reality. It has been made out to be one where all men are judged equally and individual rights to decision making are preserved. In the broadcast sense, the democratic government of today, whether it be in United States or in Singapore, has lived up to what it has been made out to be.

But what of the fact that democratic governments are not composed of entirely reliable characters with behaviour above reproach? Scandals are rife within democratic governments. Can an affair of the proportion of David Mellor's be a desirable trait for John Major's government? Will the public ever forget the Profumo affair? Will people in America remember Mixon' s disgrace as a desirable hallmark of a democratic government?

'Democratic governments are not as desirable as they seem.' Some people have this view because they feel betrayed by their leaders. Other political systems consider democratic governments as a force running a country and then justifying their actions to the people, no better than their own governments.

In the final analysis, it is true, to a certain extent, that a democratic government is not as desirable as it has been made out to be. This is largely dependent on the individual's perceptions and expectations with regard to such a government. A democratic government is not one that rules a Utopia, as some would seem to think. It has its failings but these are no different from the corruption, bribery, politicking and struggles for power in other non-democratic governments. A democratic government, in reality, is only as desirable as one perceives it to be desirable.