For all the amount of time and money spent on promoting it, democracy is overrated. Truly the form of government is not as important as the competency of the people in power. Singapore has its own version of democracy though probably not the one the West envisions but we're doing pretty well. China is at the other spectrum of politics and they're outperforming India. Democracy is supposed to give power to the people but, being selfish by nature and what we term "kiasu", popular sentiment may not always be the best choice. It's similar to how we know vegetables are good for us and we should eat it but we don't always do what we should.
Granted a democracy gives checks and balances such that the party in power cannot flaunt its power and is held accountable for its actions. Then again, if you really think about it, no ruler has truly been able to flaunt his power for too long a period of time. Inept emperors in China have been overthrown since time memorium and it works the same way as democracy does now albeit a longer and perhaps more violent way. If the people are not foremost in his thoughts and he abuses his authority, eventually his dynasty will crumble. The problem now is that heads of states now have to worry about staying in power in addition to running the country. That sounds rather contradictory since you should remain in power easily if you rule well. Well, somehow those two don't always go hand in hand. Good medicine IS bitter.
Another thing I don't quite get is the situation in Pakistan. Before the assasination, the political opponents of Musharraf have both been removed from power in Pakistan for corruption. How can people vote for them again after what they have done? It's hard for a leopard to change its spots and after such scandals in the past, is it still possible to rule well and have the fullest trust of the people? Japan has already seen so many farm ministers resign in the space of a month due to a scandalous past and yet, Pakistan may have a formerly corrupt person in charge in the future. One more issue is how Pakistan remains a nuclear state despite its hazy future and close proximity to Afghanistan. It's amazing how fast the US moved into Iraq but isn't there any political leverage that can or could be used to disarm Pakistan? Doesn't she pose a much bigger threat to US security than Iran or Iraq seeing how anti-US sentiment is rising?
Perhaps all these issues have already been considered but it's just food for thought.
Granted a democracy gives checks and balances such that the party in power cannot flaunt its power and is held accountable for its actions. Then again, if you really think about it, no ruler has truly been able to flaunt his power for too long a period of time. Inept emperors in China have been overthrown since time memorium and it works the same way as democracy does now albeit a longer and perhaps more violent way. If the people are not foremost in his thoughts and he abuses his authority, eventually his dynasty will crumble. The problem now is that heads of states now have to worry about staying in power in addition to running the country. That sounds rather contradictory since you should remain in power easily if you rule well. Well, somehow those two don't always go hand in hand. Good medicine IS bitter.
Another thing I don't quite get is the situation in Pakistan. Before the assasination, the political opponents of Musharraf have both been removed from power in Pakistan for corruption. How can people vote for them again after what they have done? It's hard for a leopard to change its spots and after such scandals in the past, is it still possible to rule well and have the fullest trust of the people? Japan has already seen so many farm ministers resign in the space of a month due to a scandalous past and yet, Pakistan may have a formerly corrupt person in charge in the future. One more issue is how Pakistan remains a nuclear state despite its hazy future and close proximity to Afghanistan. It's amazing how fast the US moved into Iraq but isn't there any political leverage that can or could be used to disarm Pakistan? Doesn't she pose a much bigger threat to US security than Iran or Iraq seeing how anti-US sentiment is rising?
Perhaps all these issues have already been considered but it's just food for thought.