The Promises and Pitfalls of Democracy

Thinkpiece no. 5

Democracy, or “the rule of the people” would have been an ideal scenario which could nurture the intelligence and will of the people, if only the body which has been entrusted with power by the people would not pursue their individual will. Perhaps, I am saying so only in connection to the Philippine government. (It might sound silly, but I do not have any further knowledge of where the democratic form of government has led other countries.)
However, I am not going to frown upon the system only because of the people who run it. The system, just I have stated before provide a suitable ground for the development of critical thinking and vigor of the people. Where freedom of speech and thought is permitted, an individual is unbound to the dictates of the time, provided of course that social tyranny does not exist. If it is, which has always been the case, an individual may still feel free to deviate the norms and face the consequences of his actions.
Direct democracy and representative democracy both have their own sets of advantages and pitfalls. Direct democracy, which relies upon the direct participation of the citizens, creates, as I have stated before, a tolerant atmosphere for the pursuit of personal beliefs, interest and eventually excellence, at its greatest point. It creates a more responsible and politically-aware citizenry. The interests of the people would not be jeopardized in the hands of self-serving politicians. Legitimacy of rules is also well-observed since the people are the one who imposed such rules to themselves. Direct democracy is the sole pure form of democracy; however it is only practicable on a small community. A country with a large territory would not warrant a situation where the citizens could assemble to discuss important matters of the state.
Direct democracy, on the other hand, being an indirect form of democracy, is a more practicable form of governance. The people, who are naturally absorbed in their own endeavors, would have more time to attend to them since they have been lifted off the weight of decision-making. Often, the temporary custodians of power have been reared with sufficient education and ideally, they are more skilled in handling political affairs. This is where the pitfalls of representative democracy come in. The perils brought by a system of representation are always lurking around since the individual will of any human being might led him astray of the real obligation he must fulfill. The Philippine government would be no less a perfect exemplar for this scenario. All throughout the years, our politicians have been nothing but pursuer of things that would benefit their political career and their fortunes. Opposition and administration alike, have used democracy as an excuse to air out their grievances which would either save their asses from the fury of the people, or add up to the rage felt for their opponents.
Also, a persistent critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. Because the citizens are likely to be ignorant of the law, the law-making body may push for any policy that would only benefit them or any party, whether it be in the business or government sector. In contrast to this issue, democracies are also criticized by their slowness in decision-making. Again, slowness is one of the practices perfected by our politicians, especially on matters that would not cause an increase on their pork barrel.
The short-term focus of democracies is also among their pitfalls. The administration would usually last for four to six years, thus self-serving politicians, instead of passing unpopular bills with longer term benefits, would only resort to popular policies which, however, might only have short term benefits.
Another argument held against democracy is that it is so prone to be reduced to political instability. Since the people are free to disagree with the actions of the government, and if this resentment becomes too strong, the people can remove administration without changing the form of government. In regard with this matter, I feel that this sets forth advantages and disadvantages at the same time. It is rightful that in a form of government that is claiming to be a rule of the people, to have an opportunity for the masses to oust a leader if they deem him or her unfit for the position. However, this right must not be abused and put into practice on grounds which are not sufficient. The threats imposed by a call for change of administration through massive protests cause harm to the economy of a counrty. I need not say that PGMA obviously insists on this matter.
Just to sum things up, after all the pitfalls I have held against democracy, it is still the form of government that I mostly favor. I feel that I would have more problems with monarchy or aristocracy, or tyranny and oligarchy (but I don’t think there’s a country claiming that they employ the form of tyranny or oligarchy, is there? ). Again, democracy is an ideal and rightful form of government because the people or their representatives could be held accountable for their actions. I do hope that the Filipino nation would witness a real form of democracy not only during election times, but also during decision-making of the present administration where the voice of the people ought to be heard and considered. I might be being too idealistic here, what can I do, it's a free country anyway.