Mediaboss Marketing

Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

Publication Date : 30-04-2014

Democracy's biggest flaw, perhaps, is its tendency to force everyone to bite off more than they can chew. When an overwhelmed team runs a corporation, the worst-case scenario is bankruptcy for those concerned. When a group of people has to do everything "for" a country after winning an election, there is no limit to how bad things can get.

This is not an anti-democracy argument. This is an argument for some serious reconsideration of the orthodox belief that, in a democracy there must be only one winner who gets to do everything. The "requirements" are too many nowadays and the circumstances very different from the days when all that rulers needed to do was guard the walls and feed hungry mouths.

Pheu Thai may be good when it comes to welfare for the grassroots but it may be bad at setting good ethical examples. The Democrats may be good at laying down education foundations but they may be bad at taking bold steps or handling public health. Chart Thai may be good at agricultural development but bad at setting visions for scientific development. Democracy is supposed to pull them together, accentuating the good and blocking the bad. But the actual situation has done anything but.

In our current system, Pheu Thai get to control the Justice Ministry, governing ethical standards, the Democrats oversee a time-sensitive infrastructure overhaul and Chart Thai lead scientific pioneering. There is no consideration paid to putting the right man in the right job, except maybe when it comes to the appointment of the finance minister.

And now, enter corruption. Over time, the "winner-does-all" arrangement has forged a "winner-gets-all" mentality. You want to win an election not out of the desire to serve, but because there's an ICT Ministry out there that can help your parallel businesses. You want to be in government because getting to oversee the agricultural sector will prove very lucrative. You win one election and the ICT and Agriculture ministries are yours, and it doesn't really matter whether you are really qualified to run them or not.

If democracy is the best there is, why shouldn't we take it to the extreme? Why not have separate elections for key sectors like education, agriculture, defence, foreign affairs, and so on? If we can't, tell me why.

More:
Why Thailand's political system isn't working

1. Democracy is a great system, perhaps the best system for governing a country ever invented by man.

2. What can be better than a government of the people, by the people, for the people. And most of the developed countries are democratic, obviously benefiting from the system.

3. Does this mean that all countries which are governed democratically will be stable, prosperous and developed? The great democracies of the West seem to think so. Such is their faith in the system that they are willing to kill and destroy in order to promote democracy. They have now decided to bring about regime change in order to democratise the undemocratic countries. If you resist democratisation they will kill you and destroy your country. And so they did in Iraq and are doing so in the Arab countries and elsewhere.

4. It is assumed that the people, or at least the majority of the people would be wise enough to choose the most capable people to rule them. Unfortunately the people do not always choose the most capable. They may be influenced by race, religion, ideology and a host of other factors when electing their governments.

5. They may also choose because of money. In fact in most cases their choices are based on immediate personal gain rather than national interest.

6. Because of all these democracy has often failed to provide countries with good governance. Indeed it may result in dividing the people into parties and groups and pit them against each other.

7. If there are only two parties it is possible for one or the other to achieve a clear majority and to form the Government. But when there are more than two, it is entirely possible for no one party getting a clear majority of the seats in the legislature to form a Government.

8. In a two party system a small majority may weaken the Government due to fear of defection by its members. Only a Government with a big majority can provide stable and effective Governments.

9. As stated above when there are numerous parties it is likely that none would achieve a majority (50%+) to form the Government. A coalition may need to be formed in order to achieve a majority. Such a post-election coalition Government would always be threatened by defections of a coalition partner and so losing the majority. The Government would thus always be weak and unstable.

10. However, a pre-election coalition stands a better chance of winning a good majority especially if the coalition acts as a party fielding only one candidate in each constituency.

Read more from the original source:
IS IT BECOS AMBIGA MET OBAMA? Dr M rakes up old criticism Bersih demos aimed to TOPPLE GOVT

Democracy Ka Orgasm
Now that Mumbai has also voted - Sumeet looks forward to the CLIMAX: leave aside Modi, Kejriwal Rahul - just look at the new saviors of the country - the o...

By: Jay Hind!

More here:
Democracy Ka Orgasm - Video

We have the mixed bag of democracy: Breakfast
Dr Ntsikelelo Breakfast on what Freedom Day means to him.

By: sabcdigitalnews

See the original post:
We have the mixed bag of democracy: Breakfast - Video

Full speech | Obama: Democracy doesn #39;t stop with elections
Full speech | In his speech at a #39;town hall #39; meeting with young leaders from South East Asia at the University of Malaya, United States President Barack Obama said democracy is an ongoing process...

By: malaysiakini

Original post:
Full speech | Obama: Democracy doesn't stop with elections - Video