Christopher Pang
Statue of Liberty - a symbol of freedom no longer endorsed by governments
Many people have this perception that liberty is synonymous with democracy and that if we had democracy, it would automatically ensure liberty for the people. Unfortunately this misconception is so fixated in people’s minds today that majority do not even have the slightest imagination of what liberty is and why it is better than having a state to tell us what we should do and can do.
The belief prevails that it is impossible for liberty to be lost under a democratic system because democracy assures the will of the people shall prevail and that is liberty. However most democracies restrict economic liberties to an extent, constrain press freedom and lack protection over minority rights.
Elections is only part of the democratic process of selecting the representatives to make decisions on behalf of the constituents. However during the election process, there could be existence of unfair election tactics to tip the advantage towards a certain party include gerrymandering, fear mongering by intimidating voters with arrest or violence, arrest of candidates using state police, suppress or criminalize campaigning. Even if we assume that fair play was present throughout the elections process, there is no doubt democracy will still violate the liberty of individuals after the elections process.
Why democracy does not ensure liberty?
Democracy gives a representative the power to decide on policies which affect his entire constituency even though 49% of the people could be opposed to him representing them. As we look further into the parliamentary procedure, representatives debate upon issues and concerns of constituents then decide based on voting of members of parliament. Do every decision the elected representative make represents everyone’s interest? Even though this representative might be representing the views of all his constituents, he might still be outnumbered by other representatives in parliament. Does every other representative represent the interest of his/her every constituent? In the event that there is division on a certain issue, would the representatives start to develop a groupthink phenomenon and move towards a consensus based on the leader’s view? Is it likely that representatives lose their own stand? This is why and how liberty perishes peacefully slowly by the vote of the people.
Liberty is defined simply as the right of a person to do what he desires according to his wisdom and conscience without the obligation to bow to the force of others. When liberty is concerned, we do not care which statutory board or government agency does an action violating our liberty or which minister is in charge of this policy but rather should a government be acting in this certain behaviour in the first place. If the government or leader in any country violates the liberty of the people, it does not matter who did it, whether he was delegated this power by another person who was voted in as a leader or he came to have this power by birth, by force or by elections. This is precisely why democracy slowly chews on liberty of each individual bit by bit and people get accustomed to this Big Brother behaviour by their overlords that they no longer recognize liberty for what it is. They are willing to sacrifice liberty for seemingly anything.
Democratic voting a duty?
During the recent General Elections in Singapore, there were many debates and arguments, including this letter by Tan Wee Tong dated 10th May 2011. He suggested fining voters who were absent without valid reasons on top of being struck off the register for the next elections. He asserts that voting is a duty of every citizen as it represents our trust in whom we choose to govern us.
Voting is essentially a RIGHT of each citizen to place the trust in whom they voted for to govern him/her. As an individual, I can choose to exercise this right or not. I am not obliged to pick one party if both parties are offering me suggestions which would not improve my status quo. If both parties proposes to tax me so that the rest of my countrymen can benefit from my wealth, would it make me any better off? Should I then vote the party that will tax me less when appointed and thank the party who “helped” me save on my taxes?
It is also ironic that an individual has to pay the cost of promoting acts which he disapprove of or policies which he does not benefit from, or subsidizing fellow countrymen who have voted against his wishes. If everyone in his neighbourhood voted against him to convert his residence into a community centre because it is the most conveniently located premises with the largest space, does this democratic process of voting makes it right just because the majority voted for it?
We lived in a world today disillusioned by the democracy which our overlords try to sell us. They will and had resorted to all forms of bribery, threats and even trickery to secure their power. Ronald Reagan once said “Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.” The recent elections have seen the liberation of new media empowering the people. Equipped with knowledge and critical thinking, many proved they could understand the issues on hand and are no longer afraid to voice out their concerns in one way or another. Our overlords can no longer just bulldoze us over. The concentration of power has been significantly reduced and we have taken a step closer to seeking liberty in our democratic society.
Democracy is fine only when it is properly qualified. It, after all, literally means people power. And no decent person would disagree that power ought to be in the hands of the people. The issue then comes down to how to equally secure the power of each person so that no one group, by sheer force of numbers, uses its power to suppress other people; thereby descending into tyranny of the majority. And this is what I think Chris hasn’t sufficiently dealt with in his article.
In short, what we need is another article dealing with why democracy does not necessarily come with liberty…