Democracy in Asia-Pacific

[Steve781]

Democracy and freedom are often used interchangably but the two are not the same. There are countries like Turkey where the government is democratically elected but nevertheless behaves in a highly authoritarian manner.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Democracy and freedom are often used interchangably but the two are not the same. There are countries like Turkey where the government is democratically elected but nevertheless behaves in a highly authoritarian manner.

That is true and simply having a majority elected government, does not a true democracy make. I would reference the definition of Freedom House as posted in the OP;

"Free and Fair Elections (Election), Political Pluralism and Participation (Participation), Well-functioning of Government (Functioning), Freedom of Expression and Belief (Expression), Associational and Organizational Rights (Association), Rule of Law, and Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights (Rights)."

 

[bbccdd1470]

Not sure how long your relatives have lived in Alberta but Alberta is known as a "boom bust" province

This is my wording problem, yet the "boom bust" is a better word.

People rave over high property prices but it is mainly foreigners (mainly mainland Chinese) buying up new subdivision development.

We have the same problem in HK few years age, and this can be improved by restricting the number of property the foreigner can buy with high taxes charge.

Our job growth prospect is not that great as most of the new jobs created are part time , low wages service jobs

I remember PM Justin Trudeau once said that he wants to encourage more foreign investments, especially from China, and three years government over-spending to create more jobs. However, I guess he is too busy legalizing marijuana at this moment.

Politicians are crap here but at least our prime minister admire China's "dictatorship" style of planning

At least he got a majority government there. I remember Canadian Prime Minister is also called "Friendly Dictator".

 

[Cossack25A1]

The most common problem with democracy is that many see it as "total freedom", and many people have different interpretation on what freedom really is.

Also, many people tend to mix up "Republic" and "Democracy" just because the leader of a republic is a not a tyrannical monarchy.

 

[Aepsilons]

That is true and simply having a majority elected government, does not a true democracy make. I would reference the definition of Freedom House as posted in the OP;

"Free and Fair Elections (Election), Political Pluralism and Participation (Participation), Well-functioning of Government (Functioning), Freedom of Expression and Belief (Expression), Associational and Organizational Rights (Association), Rule of Law, and Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights (Rights)."

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

- Alexander Fraser Tytler



Ideological self-destruct

This process adopts ideologies like “social justice”, “progressive deficit”, and “social inclusion” as ways to justify it. And it will be seen as a right. E.g. a reduction in taxation is always referred to as ‘giving money to the rich’ instead of what it really is – desisting from taking it from them. It’s a highly proceduralised shakedown, adorned with fine words and the high academic seal of legitimacy.

This ideological thrust paints the traditional state of things as uniformly bad, as something to be changed, to be got away from. This simplifies in the general consciousness as the idea that western society, not having always signed up to notions of 'social justice', i.e. the forcible transfers of wealth from the minority to the majority, is bad. If it can be undermined, along with the oppressors who impose it, then the welfare utopia can arise in its place. Not for nothing did Mikhail Gorbachev, during a March 2000 visit to London, describe EU as "the new European Soviet".

Over time, the ingrained wisdom is that anything traditional, anything associated with the old way of doing things, is to be torn down. In this environment, western culture, traditional morality, individual responsibility, self-restraint, and self-reliance, are reflexively perceived as bad in themselves. And western society and its towering historical culture are seen merely as irrelevant or oppressive. This explains the self-loathing of western society, particularly welfare democratic society, and its peculiar determination to weaken and undermine itself in the face of any threat.

 

[Jlaw]

I remember PM Justin Trudeau once said that he wants to encourage more foreign investments, especially from China, and three years government over-spending to create more jobs. However, I guess he is too busy legalizing marijuana at this moment.

Every election, all the Canadian politicians promiset job creation, getting more foreign investment but not one politician lay out any plans on how to achieve it. Yes he did say look for more Chinese investments but I can assure you it's all talk. Canada is very weary of Chinese companies competing and buying Canadian companies. We saw that with Nexus. The deal eventually went through but there was a lot of backlash from the liberal media as well as conservative media.

 

[Aepsilons]

Every election, all the Canadian politicians promiset job creation, getting more foreign investment but not one politician lay out any plans on how to achieve it. Yes he did say look for more Chinese investments but I can assure you it's all talk. Canada is very weary of Chinese companies competing and buying Canadian companies. We saw that with Nexus. The deal eventually went through but there was a lot of backlash from the liberal media as well as conservative media.

It is the ingrained aspect of media's perception of "China Threat". Unfortunately i must confess that even in Japan , for a long time, there was a strong sense of distrust towards opening investments to the Chinese. This threat perception was due in part to the propagation of Washington-touted "Communist Domino Theory". I admit when i was in my younger days (early 20s) when I served in the JMSDF, i , too, was influenced by this anti-communist rhetoric. It was a poisonous thinking, really, my friend. I was able to grow beyond foolish domestic conceptualizations when I was given the privilege to study in Taipei during a foreign exchange program during my undergraduate years --- there i was able to build a deeply positive relationship with Chinese students (Mainlanders and Taiwanese) , and opened my eyes to more on the Chinese systems. A better, realistic appreciation so to say.

I suppose Japan has changed really in the past 10 or so years since i was in the service. For one there seems to have more understanding of China's economic clout, China's political reformation, and the shear fact that more and more Chinese have started to visit Japan in numbers, or the growing number of Chinese who are beginning to live in Japan. This grassroots level change has positively affected Japanese views of China real time, actually. To the point now that Japan is slowly , gradually, but realistically, opening up to Chinese FDI. And not only that -- encouraging it.

Chinese Property Investors Target Tokyo - WSJ

Konnichiwa, China: Japan’s tourism industry says hello to Chinese investment | South China Morning Post

It truly is interesting -- how economic growth and development will, ULTIMATELY, change threat perceptions. For the better. In context to China, the Japanese are continuously re-discovering the potency of China, and what China and how China can better influence and transform Japan.

 

[gambit]

You keep posting these things but again, virtually every human rights organization of note, strongly condemns China's LACK of human rights. I can assure you, similar flowery language could be found in Stalin's constitution, in Pol Pots, in China's under Mao, and not one world of that language kept those regimes from mass genocide against their own people. Now I am not saying that China today is anywhere as bad on human rights as it was under Mao, but I AM making the point, that all the constitutions with all the beautiful human rights language in the world, does not mean a darn thing if the regime and ONLY party allowed to govern, says it doesn't or ignores such language.

What he seemingly does not understand is that if there is a constitution, the initial understanding is that everyone is subjected to that document, but for the China that he admires, the Party is above the constitution and used by the Party mainly as a veneer for political legitimacy.

 

[Piper]

What he seemingly does not understand is that if there is a constitution, the initial understanding is that everyone is subjected to that document, but for the China that he admires, the Party is above the constitution and used by the Party mainly as a veneer for political legitimacy.

One of the important if not the only important question is that whom does the party work for? Is it for China as an entity or for themselves. If it is the former than it can be acceptable. Tyrannical decisions may be explained away as long term strategy for the greater good but if it is the later then it is no different from typical oligarchy.

CPC likes to portray itself as a technocracy/meritocracy working for the benefit of China but it's secretive and opaque nature makes it difficult us to arrive at an informed conclusion.

However one thing which is clear is that without checks and balances present in a two party or multi party system the whole thing can come down like a house of cards.

 

[gambit]

Democracy and freedom are often used interchangably but the two are not the same. There are countries like Turkey where the government is democratically elected but nevertheless behaves in a highly authoritarian manner.

You want absolute freedom ? Go live in the wild.

Democracy and freedom together is necessary only when there is a community of people wanting to live together for some reasons. We are used to that condition and that is why 'democracy' and 'freedom' are often together in this type of discussion.

The crux of the matter is this...

What kind of society should be this community ? A dictatorship ? Authoritarian ? Democratic ?

It is easy to say 'Each have advantages and disadvantages.' We all know that. But the question have a greater implication, which is: For the long term, which system is the best balance between the individual selfish desires and the common good ?

For the charismatic dictatorship and elitist group authoritarian systems, you want a persistent benevolency in each. So far, we have seen a poor record for either. Those who are pining for the fantasy of a benevolent dictator never lived under either when he or that elitist group exercised their power.

 

[Aepsilons]

One of the important if not the only important question is that whom does the party work for? Is it for China as an entity or for themselves. If it is the former than it can acceptable. Tyrannical decisions may be explained away as long term strategy for the greater good but if it is the later than it is no different from typical oligarchy.

CPC likes to portray itself as a technocracy/meritocracy working for the benefit of China but it's secretive and opaque nature makes it difficult us to arrive at a informed conclusion.

However one thing which is clear is that without checks and balances present in a two party or multi party system the whole thing can come down like a house of cards.

i like that you are able to critically think !

 

[Cossack25A1]

You want absolute freedom ? Go live in the wild.

Democracy and freedom together is necessary only when there is a community of people wanting to live together for some reasons. We are used to that condition and that is why 'democracy' and 'freedom' are often together in this type of discussion.

The crux of the matter is this...

What kind of society should be this community ? A dictatorship ? Authoritarian ? Democratic ?

It is easy to say 'Each have advantages and disadvantages.' We all know that. But the question have a greater implication, which is: For the long term, which system is the best balance between the individual selfish desires and the common good ?

For the charismatic dictatorship and elitist group authoritarian systems, you want a persistent benevolency in each. So far, we have seen a poor record for either. Those who are pining for the fantasy of a benevolent dictator never lived under either when he or that elitist group exercised their power.

Isn't absolute freedom similar to anarchy, where in the idea is that no one is subjected to any form of rules except their own personal rules?

 

[gambit]

Isn't absolute freedom similar to anarchy, where in the idea is that no one is subjected to any form of rules except their own personal rules?

Most believe anarchy is chaos, destruction, and unjustified violence. That is not true. Anarchy is the complete absence of hierarchy. Basically, no one can order you around, for any reason. Whatever you want to do or not do, it will be from your own reasoning why, not because of any law and governing authority.

For examples...The international order is anarchic. The UN is not any effective governing authority. The US society is not anarchic, because the US government if the final governing authority that create laws and enforces them over everyone inside the borders.