Adversarial democracy vs public democracy
Updated: 2013-10-16 07:17
By Ho Lok-sang(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
Although democracy is generally taken to represent a universal value, there has always been an air of mystery as to what constitutes democracy. In the Western world, democracy is always taken to be adversarial democracy. Different parties, representing different interests, compete for power through the ballot box. Voters cast their votes in support of their favorite candidates, and those candidates who best represent their interests will attract their votes.
According to the logic of adversarial democracy, political parties have two functions. One is that no matter which party wins, it will face an opposition which provides "checks and balances" against possible power abuses. The other is that parties distill information and make voting easier. Because each party has its own traditions, styles and philosophy, voters dispense with the need to study each candidate carefully, and vote for the party whose traditions and philosophy is closer to theirs.
During the adversarial process, different interest groups confront one another, each seeking the support of politicians, and each mostly minding their own interests. Politicians, in seeking support, make promises to the voters and campaign hard to win their support. Since voters are mostly preoccupied with some immediate concerns, the wider and longer-term interests of society are often put aside. Politicians are naturally inclined to address their more immediate concerns. The "pork barrel" has become a non-separable part of today's politics in the US. Lobbying has become a major industry in the US, with big businesses spending billions of dollars trying to sway politicians toward their interests. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Cay Johnston in his recent book Perfectly Legal detailed the loopholes the US government provides the "super rich" to hide their wealth, to defer or evade tax payments, and to pass the bill to law-abiding middle-class America. Such loopholes were achieved with the help of politicians with the blessing of the modern democratic system.
The idea that political parties distill information for the electorate and make voting easier is based on the assumption that polarization provides useful information. In the US, voting Republican means voting for small government, while voting Democrat means voting for big government. Quite apart from the fact President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) had already been compromised to respect the interests of big business, the primary concern of Republicans is now to block the ACA.
I urge all those who are interested in pursuing democracy in Hong Kong to read John Stuart Mill. A famous quote of his, from On Liberty, says: "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." To summarize what he is saying, we should all put ourselves in the shoes of others. To the extent that we don't want others to impose things upon us, let us not impose things upon others.
Mill is not an armchair philosopher. He held a seat in Parliament. However, he was notable for being a parliamentarian who refused to campaign, and yet succeeded in winning a seat. But such public-interest-minded politicians as Mill are difficult to find these days, largely because they cannot survive in an environment of adversarial politics.
I concur with Mill that "happiness is the sole end of human action" and indeed the only valid basis to make a judgment on morality. I also agree completely with Mill on the need for impartiality: one's happiness is no more important than any other person's happiness. So it is important not to impose things that would reduce other people's happiness, unless, acting behind a veil of ignorance and not knowing if you would receive the brunt of those things, you would still accept those things because those things enhance your ex ante happiness through making society more livable.
I congratulate myself for living in Hong Kong: where we enjoy the rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and religious freedom. I also look forward to a day - and I trust soon - when we enjoy free and open elections for both the Chief Executive and for all Legislative Council seats. But I do hope adversarial private-interest democracy will give way to "public-interest democracy" under a culture of full respect for others' rights equal to one's own.
The author is director of the Center for Public Policy Studies at Lingnan University.
(HK Edition 10/16/2013 page1)