Democracy is possibly the most popular word in the world today. It is so popular that North Korea has its official name as Democratic Republic of North Korea. Based on my 31 years of residency in various countries I have not yet understood why democracy is failing despite being so popular.
I experienced absolute monarchy in my country of birth until it changed to constitutional monarchy after 240 years, then became what is now Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal with the most corrupted form of communism in power for the past 35 years.
I also lived in other autocratic countries such as Malawi, Vietnam, Maldives, Iraqi Autonomous Region of Kurdistan, Ghana, Yemen and Myanmar. I experienced the transition from autocracy to democracy in Ghana when Captain J.J. Rolling handed power to democratically elected President Kufour in 2001. And there was a short -lived transition to democracy in Myanmar when military General Thein Sein transferred power to Aung San Suky in 2012. In all these countries I heard enough about democracy in the speeches by local leaders and people alike. While in Ghana someone once told me that 'in democracy you can say what you please but you do not have to listen to others unless you want to'. Sounds about right!
Whichever way democracy is defined there are successes and failures everywhere. According to EIU, barring five countries in the world (Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland) none of the countries are fully democratic and in fact more than 60 countries are autocratic despite the Head of State and legislatures are elected by the general public (Democracy Index of Economics Intelligence Unit). Candidates, once elected are unable to practice democratic governance but there are sound bites of democracy in speeches of all politicians 24/7. Democracy is a word all politicians use but very few seem to actually mean it.
In democratic governance power resides in the people which they exercise through general election and expects the government to be accountable and transparent in all their decisions where the rule of law is fully honoured while maintaining separation of power to avoid self-interest. This is the textbook version of democracy but the practical application of this principle is miles away. A divine truth we must not forget is that whether it is democracy or not, every government is expected to deliver a secure, peaceful, prosperous economy with equal opportunity for all, otherwise they have no business in being in governance.
Root of failure
The process of election itself appears corrupted with false promises with money playing a hidden (or not so hidden) role, thus beginning the weakening or the failure of democracy from the very start while choosing the elected representatives. The first casualty of such an elected government is usually bending the rule of law favouring an agenda fixed by the rich and the powerful. In countries with no term limit, such elected leaders become autocratic democrats. Even if there are term limits the process continues with the same result in every election cycle.
Nemesis of democracy
The single party system of Socialist Republic of Vietnam did exactly which any democratic country prefaced to do - equal application of rule of law and citizen oriented social policies, egalitarian market-based economy, trade liberalisation, encouraged private enterprises, human capital development, decentralised administrative authority, infrastructure development, alleviation of poverty, strict corruption control and so on (Vietnam lifted capital punishment for corruption on 1 July 2025). With a long-term focus on national development Vietnam achieved political stability. The critiques of Vietnam will jump immediately saying that Vietnamese people have no media freedom. Yes, there are no private media in Vietnam; there is tight censorship on the internet and social media.
Whichever way democracy is defined there are successes and failures everywhere. According to EIU, barring five countries in the world (Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland) none of the countries are fully democratic and in fact more than 60 countries are autocratic despite the Head of State and legislatures are elected by the general public (Democracy Index of Economics Intelligence Unit). Candidates, once elected are unable to practice democratic governance but there are sound bites of democracy in speeches of all politicians 24/7. Democracy is a word all politicians use but very few seem to actually mean it.
In democratic governance power resides in the people which they exercise through general election and expects the government to be accountable and transparent in all their decisions where the rule of law is fully honoured while maintaining separation of power to avoid self-interest. This is the textbook version of democracy but the practical application of this principle is miles away. A divine truth we must not forget is that whether it is democracy or not, every government is expected to deliver a secure, peaceful, prosperous economy with equal opportunity for all, otherwise they have no business in being in governance.
Root of failure
The process of election itself appears corrupted with false promises with money playing a hidden (or not so hidden) role, thus beginning the weakening or the failure of democracy from the very start while choosing the elected representatives. The first casualty of such an elected government is usually bending the rule of law favouring an agenda fixed by the rich and the powerful. In countries with no term limit, such elected leaders become autocratic democrats. Even if there are term limits the process continues with the same result in every election cycle.
Nemesis of democracy
The single party system of Socialist Republic of Vietnam did exactly which any democratic country prefaced to do - equal application of rule of law and citizen oriented social policies, egalitarian market-based economy, trade liberalisation, encouraged private enterprises, human capital development, decentralised administrative authority, infrastructure development, alleviation of poverty, strict corruption control and so on (Vietnam lifted capital punishment for corruption on 1 July 2025). With a long-term focus on national development Vietnam achieved political stability. The critiques of Vietnam will jump immediately saying that Vietnamese people have no media freedom. Yes, there are no private media in Vietnam; there is tight censorship on the internet and social media.
We are witnessing how the public is being held hostage by the media with false news, views, messages, addictive video clips, etc. in the name of media freedom in democratic countries. Vietnam may have spared the public from this media mayhem. The situation of democracy and the media is the same in People's Republic China. By the way, while national policies are decided by the politburo, at the administrative level both these countries are run by technocrats not by hardcore communists. The international media is full of news about lack of democracy in China and lack of freedom and atrocities committed against Uighur Muslims in China. Why is there so much love for Chinese Muslim while perpetuating atrocities among Muslims in the Middle East? Similarly, countries support independence of Taiwan from China but mute on the independence of Catalans and Basques from Spain, Scottish and Northern Irland from the United Kingdom, etc. These are the examples of how democracy and freedom is promoted and failed worldwide with different sets of criteria for different countries.
Self-interest in democracy
The biggest problem is the self-interest of the people - elected and the electorates - in influencing national policy for the benefit of the few. It causes the blurring of the separation of power between different branches of the government to achieve their self-interest. Such political corruption undermines and erodes public trust in the government as a whole, not just on selected national institutions. Private sector also controls the media and keeps the general public away from reality. Unbiased application of rule of law is possibly the most important criteria in building bonds between the government and the public but the legal system can be bought or rented with total disregard to the rule of law.
The World Bank and International Monetary Fund have successfully justified the free market economy with deregulation and spread of privatisation within the confines of democratic governance. Is it a coincidence that deregulation of the economy and spread of privatisation also took hold in parallel with the spread of democratic system of governance since the 1990s?
Self-interest in democracy
The biggest problem is the self-interest of the people - elected and the electorates - in influencing national policy for the benefit of the few. It causes the blurring of the separation of power between different branches of the government to achieve their self-interest. Such political corruption undermines and erodes public trust in the government as a whole, not just on selected national institutions. Private sector also controls the media and keeps the general public away from reality. Unbiased application of rule of law is possibly the most important criteria in building bonds between the government and the public but the legal system can be bought or rented with total disregard to the rule of law.
The World Bank and International Monetary Fund have successfully justified the free market economy with deregulation and spread of privatisation within the confines of democratic governance. Is it a coincidence that deregulation of the economy and spread of privatisation also took hold in parallel with the spread of democratic system of governance since the 1990s?
The year 1990 also marks the rise of economic inequality on a linear scale. It is not difficult for people to conclude that the idea of deregulation and privatisation, the theme of which is simply profit, not distribution, is not helping people, democracy or not. It is not performing like the academics envisioned. The deregulation and privatisation gave ideal opportunities to the rich and the powerful. Their 'creative' ideas such as taking control of media to promote narratives based on the views of the elected government wins the loyalty of the elected official while needs of the general public are parked in the backburners. The biggest problem facing today in almost all countries is economic hardships arising not because of democracy but how democracy is practiced. Of course, the top tier of the society such as the private sectors are exempted from the prevailing economic disenfranchise.
Democracy has become a defenceless system monopolised and manipulated by opportunists with the market economy as its centre stage with full support of the populists and oligarchs devoid of any emotions. According to Freedom House, there has been a sharp decline in free & fair election, freedom of press, the rule of law, political rights and civil liberties consecutively in 113 countries since 2006. Yet, all these countries claim to be democratic.
Vietnam is part of the global community sharing all global economic systems but it did not experience this severity of market malfunction and economic disenfranchisement of people. The reason is because the government is able to enforce strict national policies governing the private sector as opposed to the private sector taking advantage of the government. This is in no way promoting communism; the idea is simply to point out where the governments are failing. How the governments must protect from the predatory habits of the private sector is the big question facing all governments worldwide.
Read more articles by Ramesh here.
Labels: Ramesh
Democracy has become a defenceless system monopolised and manipulated by opportunists with the market economy as its centre stage with full support of the populists and oligarchs devoid of any emotions. According to Freedom House, there has been a sharp decline in free & fair election, freedom of press, the rule of law, political rights and civil liberties consecutively in 113 countries since 2006. Yet, all these countries claim to be democratic.
Vietnam is part of the global community sharing all global economic systems but it did not experience this severity of market malfunction and economic disenfranchisement of people. The reason is because the government is able to enforce strict national policies governing the private sector as opposed to the private sector taking advantage of the government. This is in no way promoting communism; the idea is simply to point out where the governments are failing. How the governments must protect from the predatory habits of the private sector is the big question facing all governments worldwide.
Read more articles by Ramesh here.
Labels: Ramesh
Democracy is the West’s favourite export after fast food and financial derivatives.
ReplyDeleteOne is tempted to respond to the “there are no real democracies” argument with a certain weary familiarity. Of course, there aren’t. There never were. Democracy has always been less a polished product and more a draft document under permanent revision, by committee.
The line often attributed to Winston Churchill still does most of the heavy lifting here: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. But it was not a triumphalist statement. It was closer to a sigh.
The West’s chest-beating today does sound slightly hollow. We once marketed democracy as a deluxe package: free elections, free press, steady growth, expanding middle class, sensible politicians in sensible suits. Somewhere along the way, we kept the elections and misplaced the sensible suits and perhaps the expanding middle class as well.
Meanwhile, Singapore quietly demonstrated that you can run a remarkably efficient, low-corruption, high-income society without turning political pluralism into a national hobby. It did not hold seminars about “the end of history.” It simply built airports, schools, and fiscal reserves. That is awkward for Western self-esteem.
But before we trade parliamentary theatrics for administrative serenity, a small observation: democracy’s virtue has never been elegance. It is ventilation. It allows bad ideas to be shouted down before they become permanent architecture. It permits governments to be dismissed without barricades. It tolerates newspapers that irritate, courts that obstruct, and voters who change their minds.
Western democracies today look chaotic because they are noisy, divided, and occasionally absurd. But that noise is also a feedback mechanism. The very public display of dysfunction is evidence of pluralism at work. It is untidy, frequently embarrassing, and undeniably slow. But it contains within it a self-repair kit.
Singapore’s success is real, so is Western complacency. The lesson may not be that democracy has failed, but that the West mistook favourable economic winds for proof of moral superiority. When growth was easy, democracy looked brilliant; when growth stalled, perhaps not so much.
Perhaps the more modest conclusion is this: democracy is not a guarantee of good governance. It is a safeguard against concentrated power. It sometimes produces mediocre outcomes. So yes, the West should lower the volume on its lecturing, and practice less sermon and more housekeeping.
But abandoning democracy because it is flawed would be like giving up on plumbing because it occasionally leaks, and returning instead to the reassuring efficiency of the bucket.
👍
DeleteThanks,Thomas, for your comment, which I very much appreciate. Not many people have patience to read anything longer than two short paragraphs.
DeleteMy argument is not to drop democracy as an institution. My frustration is largely for not being able to control the political corruption in the democratic institution. You mentioned Singapore, which is the best example of a successful democracy but it is always in the spotlight for being dictatorial. Lee Kwan Yu governed Singapore from 1059 to1990 with his People’s Action Party by winning elections in every single free and fair general election. His son Lee Hsien Loong was also the third PM of Singapore. Lee Hsien Loong also has a military background, which might be frowned in western democracy. The success of Singapore is strict adherence to Rule of Law. Singapore is humorously known as a ‘fine’ city as every small mistake can have financial penalty such as smoking in public places, chewing gum sale, etc. You may recall an American youthMichael Fay was jailed for 4 months and fined $2230 for vandalising 18 cars with spray paint and stealing street signs in 1994. He was prisoned for four months(reduced from six months after the President intervened). After completing his jails sentence, he returned to the USA and had several TV interviews including on Larry King Live like a Hero. Singapore was criticized in the US media for its actions. But in SingaporeLaw is Law. This is what is missing in democracy. I do not know why I am lamenting this but my point is that the biggest problem in democracy is the lack of rule of law, which is bent like a jelly and who can do that – people with power or money. You mentioned towards the end that ‘West mistook favourable economic winds for proof of moral superiority’. This economic win is attached to too many unfair financial practices in banking, monopoly in major industries including pharmaceutical industries) supply procurement, etc. These are not the hallmarks of democracy. Anyways it is getting longer. The bottom line is that until political corruption is not controlled democracy will not succeed and we will continue to criticise Singapore and Vietnam for their success.Thanks
Ramesh, we’re quarrelling in the way only democrats can: at length, politely, nuanced and with footnotes.
DeleteYou’re right, without the rule of law, democracy turns into performance art. Elections become seasonal festivals, constitutions decorative brochures, and accountability something discussed rather than practised.
Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew worked not because it discovered an exotic alternative to Western-style democracy, but because it treated corruption as a disease rather than a networking opportunity. “Law is law”, even when it involved Michael Fay and offended American talk show hosts. In Singapore, vandalise 18 cars, and you meet the law. In some parts of the democratic world, you might meet a book agent.
But here is the twist: democracy’s flaw is also its safeguard. It allows corruption to exist and to be exposed. It tolerates noisy journalists, irritable courts, and voters who periodically fire the management. That is not elegant governance, but it has worked rather well.
As Winston Churchill implied with a sigh, democracy is not a luxury suite. It’s plumbing. When it leaks, everyone complains. The alternative is often very quiet, until it isn’t.
So yes, corruption is democracy’s nemesis. The difference is that in a democracy, corruption often gets arrested. In other systems, it sometimes gets promoted.
Thomas, we are not quarrelling. We are looking at a common issue with different perspective and most of the time we are on the same pane too! By the way I missed a crucial word Clinton before the word President. The sentence was reduced after a call from Clinton to Lee Kwan Yu. How did he find time to intervene on such small issue, i.e. Americans can make any mistake anywhere and get away with it.
DeleteNamaste and have a good evening.
Perhaps the oldest footnote to this entire discussion comes from Thucydides, who observed, in what we would now call a refreshingly non-diplomatic policy brief, that “the powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
DeleteDemocracy, at its best, is humanity’s ongoing attempt to interrupt that arrangement. Sometimes it succeeds; sometimes the powerful still do what they can, just with better public relations.
Progress lies in attempting to force power to follow the rules, and occasionally succeed. Not perfect justice, but historically speaking, an upgrade.