Democracy and Autocracy: A face beneath the masks

Across the spectrum of various political system and governance, democracy has
remarkably stood up as the most praised system in the world. In contrary
democracys greatest villain, autocracy, has been spitted and criticised unanimously
by developing and developed economies alike. The recent upheavals sparked off in
Tunisia, the Arab Spring, arguably is the quintessence of the worlds repugnance at
the face of autocracy. Such a great shift in political system seen in Egypt, Tunisia and
Lybia may convince people that democracy should be the ends of every nation,
while autocracy should not exist in our modern era. Democracy has proven to
ensure the well-being of countries, facilitated power check and balance, and
empowered the people, or at least that is how most people believe. However, the
aforementioned judgement call may not be necessarily valid, especially when one
takes into consideration the varying geopolitical condition of different countries.
The truth is, a certain suit may not fit everyone, so is democracy not for everyone.

However, it is not to say that autocracy is better than democracy. A common
reaction that people have against autocracy would be, absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Though a tired clich, there is some truth in it as the lack of
transparency and power check in autocracies have been the source of peoples
entrenched disgust towards the autocrats. Western powers like the US has generally
supported and encouraged the direction of the revolutions in the Arab countries.
Interestingly, there seems a common sentiment shared by the world on the idea of
absolute power. This is understandable since there are many cases in which
dictators hold their power long enough to be seen as a tyrannical figure. Most of
them resort to eradicating their oppositions to ensure their own political survival.
The civil war against the ruling government in Syria is a true epitome of the case
where the dictator, Basshar al-Assad, killed considerably many lives in order to
maintain his grip on power. In 1970s, those intellectuals who were deemed as
potential threats to the government would be arrested and executed by the
Indonesian then-president Soeharto. Power concentrated on ones hand has always
been portrayed as a natural enemy of human rights.

Surprisingly, diffusion of power from a single hand to the mass, in the purest sense
of democracy, may not necessarily be the right answer. There are some, if not,
equally many problems inherent to the idea of empowering the people. The
existence of flawed democracies uniquely prevalent in South-East Asian countries,
especially the Phillippines, suggests that power in many hand is worse than power
in one hand. In the case of the Phillippines, presidential elections have been
unfortunately transformed into personality contest in which the most popular and
lovable candidate would be voted to power, rather than those who are the most
competent. Several elected presidents such as Ramos and Estrada have been rated
as underqualified and incompetent to lead the country. This serves as an example
when peoples power has resulted in a decision making that is regretably harmful to
the country. It may even justify a case for autocracy, saying that it would be
definitely be better to have a dictator who has a clear direction and foresight for the
country.

Further flaws of democracy are manifested in the inflexibility and rigidity of the
bureaucratic process which may prove detrimental during crises. In USA, there is a
long debate between the Republican and the Democrats in response to Barrack
Obamas plan to reduce government budget for healthcare. In the light of mounting
government deficit of US$1.42 trillion at that time, cutting of public spending would
be the most immediate and necessary act if the US was serious in managing their
debt of US$15.9 trillion. Yet, the long debate caused a considerable delay of this
policy to be implemented, basically for upholding the tenets of democracy. In this
case, one may view democracy as a paranoid allergic reaction towards absolute
power, such that every leaders decision has to pass the quagmire of opposing voices
before a concession is reached. This would be unrealistic in times of hardship when
a leader has to step in and lead the direction of the counter, for the people to follow,
not to question. This quality is distinctively stark in the case of autocratic
leadership.

Be that as it may, in my view, both political system have their merits that could not
be simply dismissed for their shortcomings as there is no flawless system in this
imperfect world. More importantly, regardless of the political system employed, the
State and the people have to play an active and concious role in ensuring the well-
being of their country. It might be bold to say this, but I believe that a political
system has little bearing in ensuring the success and the prosperity of a country, not
more than any other important components that compose it, namely the people and
the government. Surya Palo, the director of a leading Indonesian television
broadcast Metro TV, once said that democracy should not be the end of a country,
but an instrument by which a country reaches its ends. To overrate a certain
political system would be to miss the whole point of cooperation between the State
and the people to achieve the countrys ideals and hopes.

Democracy may be the preferable default state of governance, but if the time
necessitates a switch into autocracy, then a country should do so in the interest of
the people. The unprecedented replacement of Silvio Burlesconi by Mario Monti as
an Italian President without going through a presidential election has showcased
the importance of flexibility in order to prevent Italy from plunging into economic
abyss. Although the inauguration of Mario Monti may be seen as a heresy against the
tenets of democratic ideals where peoples vote is nonnegotiable, such breaches are
the product of enlightened thinking in which people are not restricted by their
rigidity and uncompromising loyalty to their political ideals.

Political system may be best described as a mask that protects the face. Beneath it is
where the people is sheltered from external glares and dangers. You may change
your mask with newer ones, but in the end it will still be the same face. Protect it
well.