Financial crisis makes mockery of democracy

Etched into our very fibre is the notion that freedom and democracy are synonymous, and that the collective decision of the whole is somehow superior to the unilateral direction of a centralised authority.

(Or. "Deep down, we all believe that freedom comes hand in hand with democracy, [we do?] and things are fairer when more people's opinions are considered.")

But with the financial crisis, what we once knew as 'the free world' has changed considerably, as have my views on the merits of democracy.

I can no longer profess such an unquestioning, unbridled admiration for the Western model of egalitarian democracy and laissez- faire economics, for it must surely bear at least partial blame for the present moribund state of the global economy, and will be indubitably culpable for the debt-driven apocalypse that awaits us.

(Or, "I don't trust democracy and the free market system anymore, it got us into this shit and it's going to get us into deeper shit soon.")

It is almost poetic in its irony that the very system we built on the quixotic concept of freedom has instead enslaved us - in debt, among other things.

But it is also hypocritical that the world's largest economies, most of which got there by promoting free trade and deregulation, should now be some of the worst offenders with regard to protectionism and policy intervention.

[Protectionism does not go against the grain of democracy, if the people wish for it to be in place, it's actually a strengthening of the resolve that democracy provides as a platform for the people's voices. This guy has clearly gone off topic]

Now it seems to me that democracy, by its very construction, is a romantic but ultimately doomed concept. It is designed to fail, and not in the wimpy manner as a leaky balloon would eventually, but rather spectacularly.

(or, "democracy is doomed to fail, big time.")

Some criticise democracy (and the free market) for making the dangerous assumption that the majority of people act rationally. The system is dangerous precisely because the majority of people do.

In my opinion, at the root of the problem are the finiteness of political longevity and the myopia that is human nature. For if we limit the political term to five years or shorter, how can we reasonably expect politicians to work in our long-term interests?

(Or, "the system provides no room for far-sighted planning)

And so it follows that, faced with the prospect of losing power to the opposition or even being upstaged by an ambitious party member, the rational politician comes to the inconvenient conclusion that far-sighted planning is ultimately an exercise in futility.

This guy has clearly not been aware of the PAP's god-like kill streak.

Charles Tan

(Or, "The boy who never got into RIJC but always felt he deserved a place")