The process of democratisation is never-ending. Its a long term commitment from the states and its people to constantly check and balance human nature and instinct against greater good of the community : Rules against tyrannism, Fundamental human rights, natural justice, equal opportunity, and finally Election. these features of democracies, along with the process, are to be perceived as living creature on its own. They are not a set of Dead principles or fixed standards to be fulfilled or achieved. Suffice to say, when one talks about democracy being practiced in certain countries, he has to speak of democracy as an on-going process instead of being an achievement or standard. Democracy should not be used as an adjective. It should be a verb connoting term even when its used as noun or adjective As such, the following semantics could be inappropriate :- US is a democratic society Australias system is democracy UK is a good example on how democracy can be achieved Instead, it should be US is practicing democracy Australias system embraces the features of democracy. UK is a good example on how democracy can be practice in better terms. We can now establish that Democracy is indeed a relative term, Subjective also to the local culture in which some might have subtle hindrace to full ratification of democratic features. The universal premise is, NO COUNTRY in this world has achieve or attain democracy. because as ive mentioned above, the definition of democracy is a moving/progressive one : it changes all the time like a living organism. Countries practice of democracy should be measure at relative terms, by way of accessing how quick they are moving towards embracing the features of democracy : natural justice, fundamental human rights, rule of laws, majority, rules against tyrannism, General election, Freedom of expression/assembly/self- determination etc. HOWEVER, democracy, more often than not, does not bear direct relation with economical progress, nor societal integrity progress. The biggest democracy in the world, India, happens to have a fairly low corruption integrity index compared to a country which practice less drmocratic feature (IE, singapore, very undemocratic in the sense of voting system (Gerrymandering through the GRC policies), limited freedom of speech and assembly, etc but still, achieve applaudable economical progression and better civilzation.) In ASEAN, based on my observation with my fellow delegates in ACYPL, i realized that when it comes to internalizing and practicing features of democracy and embracing the process of democratisation, Malaysia is really really moving very fast. Indonesia and The Philippines happen to be countries that are relatively more/most democratic in ASEAN, where the features of democracy is most reflected in governmental practice especially on elections. Worst would be mainland ASEAN countries (Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand), Brunei, and Singapore. malaysia suprisingly has become a model of democracy for many of the ASEAN countries, mainly because our BETTER embrace for Features of democracies compared to them, without compromising our economical progression like what happened in most part of indonesia less jakarta, and the Philippines Less certain part of Manila. My Myanmar friends were telling me that You have 57 years of democracy, and Malaysia is very democratic! we are not! we hope Myanmar can become like Malaysia. My Singaprean friends told me the same thing you guys have done away with ISA, we still have it, the government is so oppresive, and they are important big brains to kill us local singaporean off - these people will vote for PAP for granting them citizenship!. so on and so forth. My conclusion is this. We might be a tyrannical country still, we might have an oppressive government still, we might not have full freedom of assembly, expression, and we might not have FULLY embraced the features of democracy as seen in western society yet, but in terms of the process of democratisation as a PROCESS, we are moving faster than anyone else without having to compromise our economical progression. So to who shall we credit our rather FASTER progression of democratisation to?
Posted on: Thu, 15 May 2014 21:34:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015