Print

Mail

wiki links

The British example of democracy

'Accusations of being 'unpatriotic' cannot enter into the discussion. ... We must assume that although viewpoints diverge, they all stem from a desire for the public good. Labeling another party 'unpatriotic' brings an automatic end to rational dialogue.'

THE LEGISLATURE HAS adjourned. As usual, this legislative session featured secret party negotiations, lampooning legislators and even full-fledged physical violence. I wish to discuss the sophistication of our democracy based on the phenomena within the legislature.

A democracy is different from an autocracy. In a democratic society, there are always different voices. The function of democracy is not only to choose one point of view through voting, but, more importantly, to reach a general consensus by a democratic process and to air different ideas. The greatness of the ideal democratic society is that it maintains social harmony.

Thus a good democratic society must give everyone a chance to participate in debate. No matter how divergent the opinions, in the end everyone calmly comes to accept a decision through reasonable and rational discussion.

It's possible to say that democratic government is built on rational discussion and that rational discussion has several defining characteristics.

First, a discussion is not an altercation and must be conducted calmly. Overly agitated or provocative language is not the rhetoric of a democratic society. The hurling of invective is especially inappropriate.

Second, accusations of being "unpatriotic" cannot enter into the discussion. This is a fundamental principle. We must assume that although viewpoints diverge, they all stem from a desire for the public good. Labeling another party "unpatriotic" brings an automatic end to rational dialogue.

Third, the content of the discussion should be as related to politics as possible.

The politically related debate within Taiwan cannot be considered calm in the slightest. Since the end of the authoritarian era, there have been frequent acts of physical violence in the legislature.

With the prevalence of violence, what remains of rational dialogue? Even without violence, the language legislators use in questioning government officials is rude and boorish and qualifies as neither argument nor discussion.

Quite significantly, a lot of Taiwan's political rhetoric comes in the form of flinging insults at one's rivals. During election time, we see large billboards featuring coarse language -- yet we appear unperturbed.

More worrying is that our politicians often accuse each other of being "unpatriotic." Although this is a trend that should not occur in a democracy, we are not alone: The US also displays similar tendencies. I am willing to bet that no member of the US Congress dared to oppose the Patriot Act that passed just after Sept. 11, 2001. Who would dare to be labeled "unpatriotic"?

A country that often throws the words "patriotic" and "unpatriotic" around is one in which democracy has yet to mature. The British never mention patriotism. Just prior to World War II, British university students were enthusiastic critics of the government.

German dictator Adolf Hitler mistakenly believed that Britain would be unable to unite and declared war on it -- yet criticizing the government and patriotism is unrelated for the British. Faced with a foreign threat, they united.

The topics discussed in a democracy don't necessarily have to do with politics, but wily politicians often use these topics to increase their votes.

The US occasionally takes a sudden interest in "family values." US President George W. Bush relied on ultra-conservative voters to gain the presidential seat, yet nobody knows what family values have to do with the presidential election. At least I fail to find a relevant connection. Paradoxically, the politicians who rave about "family values" often do not have an ideal family background themselves.

During a debate in a US presidential election, a candidate was questioned as to what his reaction would be if a member of his family were raped: Could a question be more foolish and irrelevant?

This is typical of US democracy. A lot of people show a great deal of interest in issues irrelevant to politics.

On the other hand, the British are much more mature. Politicians do not dwell upon such bizarre subjects. They deal with healthcare, education, foreign relations, national defense, finance and economics. British politicians are forced to be well versed in these topics and must have clear positions on these issues.

In a democracy, there should be no overly loyal party members. The people we elect are public servants. We have no need to be loyal to our representatives, but they must be loyal to us, because we are their masters. Sadly, in our country, many boast of an unflagging loyalty to certain individuals or parties.

Meanwhile, the British dismissed wartime prime minister Winston Churchill before the end of World War II. Their cold and calculating attitude toward politicians is a worthwhile example for us.

In a healthy democracy, the public uses politicians to serve the public. In an immature democracy, politicians use the public to serve themselves. It would benefit us to calm down and carefully consider who is using who.

Lee Chia-tung is a professor at National Chi-nan University.

Translated by Angela Hong
This story has been viewed 880 times.