Thursday, September 07, 2006

到底何谓民主?


最近大专校园竞选要到了,博大校园也发生了许多事情,从学生代表暴力事件到旧组屋事件,让我不禁思考起,到底何谓民主?

针对这个问题,我问了许多不同的人,他们的答案也有许多的不同。

系友甲说:民主就是投票、民主就是选举、民主就是政治,

系友乙说:民主就是人民是国家的主人翁、人民将管理国家的权利寄托给信任的人,民主不是投票、投票选出来的国家管理人必须依照人民意愿去办事,

学长说:民主就是少数人服从多数人意见,但是不忽视少数人的意见。

学者说:民主的意思是由人民作主,人民是主人,政府是人民的公僕。而自由和民主往往可以互换使用,但是,二者并非同义词。民主是关于自由的一整套观念和原则;但是,民主也是由一整套做法和程序构成的,这些做法和程序 的形成,经历了漫长而且往往是迂回曲折的历史过程。简言之,民主是自由的制度化。因此,有可能去识别立宪政体、人权、法律面前人人平等这些经过时时间考验 的基本原则,而这一切,是任何可以名符其实地冠以民主称号的社会所必须具备的。

美国前总统亚伯拉罕.林肯说,民主是民有、民治、民享的政权。

字典上的定义,民主是人民支配的政体,最高权力属于人民,由人民直接行使,或由经自由选举制度产生人民代理人行使。

听了那么多,我觉得对于民主自由诠释并不是我们应该去比较的,反而觉得对于民主自由所要遵守的原则,更为重要。

所以我参考了网上的一些资料与大家分享。

民主的原则

1) 政府的建立基于被人民的同意

2) 多数裁决原则

3) 少数人的权益

4) 对基本人权的保证

5) 自由公平的选举

6) 法律面前人人平等

7) 合法诉讼程序

8) 政府受宪法制约

9) 社会、经济、政治上的多元主义

10) 宽容大度、注重实用、合作和妥协的价值观

看完听完参考完,我就在想到底大专校园竞选有没有民主可言呢?突然觉得其实并没有民主可言,因为在校园,我们就是校园人民,但是被选出来的学生代表,都不是我们的公仆,他们反而是大学校方的私仆,这点如何看出,就从博大暴力事件与旧组屋事件来说,他们帮助校方包围、躯赶学生,协助校方演一场“旧组屋拯救记”,希望博大生感激他们,当大学生都是傻的,不会分明是非黑白。

所谓的学生代表也是没有实权的代表,他们都是校方选出来的代表,因为在博大是使用电子投票,电子投票缺乏透明度,不能重算选票,整个投票过程由校方全力掌控,学生或候选人没有监督权,所以说能不说他们是校方代表吗?

校方常常说大学是社会的缩影,而校园竞选是让大专生了解民主过程的训练,但是奇怪的是这个训练,还真的费尽心思,从之前的抹黑、恐吓学生候选人到自导自演的电子投票,真的是用心良苦啊!

但是,我相信只要大家努力为校园民主奋斗、学生自治而努力,更美好的校园,一定不远了!!

部分资料参考http://www.usembassychina.org.cn/infousa/whatdm/GB/homepage.htm

1 comment:

Simon Ooi Tze Min 黄思敏 said...

Democracy, what does it really mean?
Raymond Woo
Apr 14, 06 3:56pm


These are indeed interesting times. Have you ever seen a time of contradiction as blatant as this? People willing to go to war and sacrifice their lives over ‘democracy’, yet denouncing the very result of democracy after that.

Or people using the excuse of democratic right for anything they do, yet quiver when their enemies use precisely this term in condoning actions detrimental to their interest.

We have never been as confused as this over this explosive word, What exactly is democracy? Is democracy and the free market synonymous? Are democracy and human rights different sides of the same coin? What if democracy itself becomes threatening to these values which the Western world and many others hold true?

Democracy, as defined by the Greeks who basically invented this word, means ‘the rule (kracy) of the common people (demos)’.

We can categorise simply, democracy into three groups: direct democracy, whereby people can directly vote on government decisions, such as in the case of a referendum or in the ancient Greek city-states; representative democracy, whereby elected representatives represent their voters in a legislative body and is the most common form of government in our world today; and liberal democracy whereby the elected representatives are bound by checks and balances like the rule of law and the separation of powers (as opposed to ‘illiberal’ democracy like Malaysia and Singapore where the elected government are not bound tightly by these).

And now, why do I say that this very controversial and much-fought over word has a very muddled and elusive meaning? Remember, even despotic Communist countries had the word ‘democratic’ in their official names, like the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, or the People`s Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea). Even Adolf Hitler championed the people as part of democracy, and no matter what we can say, he did come to power in the context of a true and liberal democratic system. And now, the only superpower left in the world, the United States of America has put this word forth as a reason (or excuse) and as a banner to ‘liberate’ people from different parts of the world through many means such as sanctions and wars.

Iraq war

Isn’t it interesting how the Iraq war started as a war to stop Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, but has become a war of liberation and for the democratisation of Iraq? All these despite the fact that the US itself admitted not having found any such weapons. All these despite the fact that thousands have died and many thousands more will perish in this uprooting and upheaval of Iraqi society as the very result of this ‘war for democracy’.

But wait a minute, doesn`t the word ‘democracy’ mean rule by the common people? So did the common Iraqi people want this war in the first place? And why is the US so jittery when the people themself voted in religious parties and therefore cautioned their ‘threat to democracy’?

How about blatantly ignoring the Palestinian people’s democratically-elected government by withholding aid and taxes (paid by the Palestinian people, thank you) due to the new Hamas-led government?

We accept that there cannot be ‘true’ democracy, i e anybody can run the country, or there will be chaos. A representative democracy are in its essence elite, for a small group of people elected to run the country.

Democracy is merely a fair and equitable way of reflecting the common people’s voices in running the affairs of the state, But, can it become a reason for crusade, such as the ‘wars for democracy and against terrorism’ that have come to characterise the start of the 21st century? As Micheal Moore put it succinctly, you can’t wage war for or against a noun.

Even then, can this very basic democratic right of elections be ignored if the very results of it is detrimental to your interest? Having failed in their search for weapons of mass destruction, the above-said powers have used the word ‘democracy’ as a tool for mass delusion. It has been basically reduced to words like ‘righteous’, ‘Christian’ or ‘Islamic’, ‘the people’ and so on, only as a tool for political persuasion and totally devoid of its real meaning.

Gone to the dogs

Democracy as a word with meaning in itself has gone to the dogs, thanks to our ‘defenders of democracy’.

Basically, not many are really interested in the welfare of the common people, much less rule by them. The truth is, rule of any country has been by the elite, whether business or political. Even in the ancient Greek cities, elections were confined to the land-owning elite. In Communist countries, despite abusing the words ‘people’, ‘democratic’ etc, were of course despotic and led by a small group of elite people.

In the United States of America, an average Joe from Smalltown, USA might technically be eligible to run for President, the reality is totally different if you care to speak to any average Joe. Even a white President was opposed merely because of his Catholic faith (John F Kennedy), for Catholics were barred from the US Protestant elite at that time.

There is no real rule of the common people anywhere in the world today. Indeed, democracy is merely a tool to use to delude the common people into supporting these elites to ensure that their rule is perpetual.

However, even though democracy is just a mirage and a dream, doesn’t mean that it’s not a beautiful dream worth pursuing. And I don’t mean waging wars and putting the lives of innocents in danger to force democracy, but to help build an environment favourable to democracy by giving out more education scholarships to foreign countries, more respect for and more communication with people from different faiths and ethnicities, more aid for infrastucture, and so on. You don’t exactly win over a people to your cause by bombing their country, no matter how much they hate their ruling despot.

As such, we shouldn’t delude ourselves over ‘democracy’. It is merely a system of governance. People`s lives need not be sacrificed, and certainly the elite interests shouldn’t overrule the real aspirations of the people.

If an administration thought of as ‘crazy’ by the West comes to power through democratic means, so be it. Deal with it as a representative of the people through a system you championed in the first place.

If we care enough to dream and to fight for this dream, real democracy would mean what it actually is; a real reflection of our voices, not just ‘certain’ voices within the limits of the tolerance of the elite.