It is very difficult to define what democracy means. It comes in all shapes and forms. We would love to believe that America is a democracy and the UK is also a democracy. In fact, it is not a black and white thing - it has different shades of meaning to it. A lot of people lament that democracy in America is dead, because they have got a new president in Donald Trump. They believe that the very fact that he has been elected the new president is sufficient to prove democracy is not working.
Obviously, without first defining what democracy means before going into all sorts of problems with democracy (whatever that term means) is futile and probably not worth your time reading this article. Loosely, I think democracy can be said to be a political system in which people can freely vote and elect to be voted to public office without hindrance. The voting system itself must be fair meaning one person one vote and each vote carries the same weight. According to these principles, democracy is not a point but a spectrum.
For example, the US system would fail these principles. Clinton won the popular votes but lost the collegial votes due to the fact that the presidential election is not a direct one. Therefore, each vote in a smaller state would often carry more weight than one in a bigger state, say California. This compromise is built-in in the US system so that smaller states would still have a say in the Federation.
Apart from the fairness dimension of a democracy, any political system including democracy (no matter what that means) must be able to regenerate itself from time to time. Sadly, all system be it physical, biological or social will all become degenerate and corrupted over time. You may probably call it the second law of thermodynamics - all orderliness will become orderless over time.
After the election, we heard that Clinton was blamming the FBI and we-don't-know-what for her loss in the election. This reflects how detached the US elite of which she is a member has become over the past decades. Clinton lost because she ignored the unfairness and the injustice of the system which has made the rich richer and poor poorer. This only proves why she would never win this election in the present social context of uncontrolled globalisation which is the root cause of where we are at this point.
This is the beauty of the system - when someone so entrenched in the vested interest of the Establishment - the system will be forced to regenerate itself because they will be voted out of the office and, someone else would have a chance to start anew. Of course, they may not succeed where others have failed and they will also become corrupted in time before they are in trun being voted out again.
In short, Donald Trump as the new president is not itself a problem. It is only symtomatic of the underlining problems of the system. Trump was elected because the system is corrupted and people want to have a real change from the status quo. Ironically, this proves that the system is working, as it is trying to regenerate itself.
2016年11月10日 星期四
Where do we go from here?
It is tempting for us to predict what will happen in future. However, more often than not these predictions will later be proved to be wrong. Nevertheess, if we look from a distance and try not to pass the woods for the tree, we may be able to see things in their proper perspective. That said, how will Donald Trump use his powers and what consequences there will be for the world of his actions or inactions?
Again, if we get to the bottom of it, it is actually a problem of fair distribution of wealth and opportunity (or rather the lack of it). People have expectation that there should be a leveled playing field so that everyone would have a fair opportunity to succeed if they choose to work hard enough. Sadly, the reality is just the opposite and becoming more and more so. People are so angered and frustrated that they would have chosen anyone other than someone who is perceived as within the Establishment as the next president of the USA. It is really in this context someone so unfit for that office has been elected the next president.
Ironically, history will prove in the coming years that someone as unfit as Donald Trump would actually have turned things around if he would indeed carry his words into action. It sounds contradictory, does it not? When we say he is unfit for the office, we are thinking conventionally and presume only someone within the Establishment is fit for this office. Don't forget that the Establishment has grown so corrupted and detached from the people in the past few decades, it is precisely because Donald Trump is so unfit for the office that makes him fit for that office.
What is so interesting about the trajectory of human affairs and history is that it seldom develops predictably in a linear way. There is a real chance that Donald Trump - someone seemingly coming out of the woodwork - could make history. Don't forget that a lot of this uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity stems from the globalization of trade which has provided the capitalists with a system in which to exploit the labour on a global scale. Yes, the pie has got bigger but the Establishment has also grabbed a much bigger portion of the pie. People on the lower rungs of the ladder are left with ever less wealth and opportunity. A rising tide does not lift all boats, because the globalization of trade is not a rising tide.
The truth of the fact is that trade ipso facto is not good. There is a distinction between good trade and bad trade. Probably no one today would say slave trade is good. Slave trade is certainly good and profitable for those who trade in it. But it is not good, because it is not fair and immoral and inhumane. Most economists who are themselves also part of the Establishment would tend to blind us from this important distinction. They know the price of every thing but the value of nothing. Then, what is good trade? The trade that is fair and just and enhances the value for everyone involved in it is good. The current system of world trade is not. Therefore, it should be rolled back.
There must be a connection between the incomes of the labour and the profit of the company so that unscrupulous exploitation of the labour by the capitalists can be rooted out. For example, if the company that makes iphones must be made by law to return a certain percentage of the profits to the labour as part of their wages on top of what they have already been paid, the company would still be encouraged to make as much profit as possible. But, its employees would also benefit from the increased profit. This would take away the exploitative dimension of the company which has always been factored in its formula for making profit. This should be the case regardless where in the world the company chooses to make its iphones (just as an example) be it in China or the USA. If this percentage point is properly set, the company may indeed choose to make its iphones in the USA, because there is no exploitative dimension it can take advantage of the labour in China. More working opportunities will be left in the USA, hence a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity.
Efficiency is only part of the formula; justice and fairness is far more important than efficiency itself. Efficiency is not an end in itself and must be made to serve justice and fairness. Efficiency represents the price of things but the true value of things lies in justice and fairness. If and only if Donald Trump sees things in the same light, there is a real opportunity for him to turn things around.
Again, if we get to the bottom of it, it is actually a problem of fair distribution of wealth and opportunity (or rather the lack of it). People have expectation that there should be a leveled playing field so that everyone would have a fair opportunity to succeed if they choose to work hard enough. Sadly, the reality is just the opposite and becoming more and more so. People are so angered and frustrated that they would have chosen anyone other than someone who is perceived as within the Establishment as the next president of the USA. It is really in this context someone so unfit for that office has been elected the next president.
Ironically, history will prove in the coming years that someone as unfit as Donald Trump would actually have turned things around if he would indeed carry his words into action. It sounds contradictory, does it not? When we say he is unfit for the office, we are thinking conventionally and presume only someone within the Establishment is fit for this office. Don't forget that the Establishment has grown so corrupted and detached from the people in the past few decades, it is precisely because Donald Trump is so unfit for the office that makes him fit for that office.
What is so interesting about the trajectory of human affairs and history is that it seldom develops predictably in a linear way. There is a real chance that Donald Trump - someone seemingly coming out of the woodwork - could make history. Don't forget that a lot of this uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity stems from the globalization of trade which has provided the capitalists with a system in which to exploit the labour on a global scale. Yes, the pie has got bigger but the Establishment has also grabbed a much bigger portion of the pie. People on the lower rungs of the ladder are left with ever less wealth and opportunity. A rising tide does not lift all boats, because the globalization of trade is not a rising tide.
The truth of the fact is that trade ipso facto is not good. There is a distinction between good trade and bad trade. Probably no one today would say slave trade is good. Slave trade is certainly good and profitable for those who trade in it. But it is not good, because it is not fair and immoral and inhumane. Most economists who are themselves also part of the Establishment would tend to blind us from this important distinction. They know the price of every thing but the value of nothing. Then, what is good trade? The trade that is fair and just and enhances the value for everyone involved in it is good. The current system of world trade is not. Therefore, it should be rolled back.
There must be a connection between the incomes of the labour and the profit of the company so that unscrupulous exploitation of the labour by the capitalists can be rooted out. For example, if the company that makes iphones must be made by law to return a certain percentage of the profits to the labour as part of their wages on top of what they have already been paid, the company would still be encouraged to make as much profit as possible. But, its employees would also benefit from the increased profit. This would take away the exploitative dimension of the company which has always been factored in its formula for making profit. This should be the case regardless where in the world the company chooses to make its iphones (just as an example) be it in China or the USA. If this percentage point is properly set, the company may indeed choose to make its iphones in the USA, because there is no exploitative dimension it can take advantage of the labour in China. More working opportunities will be left in the USA, hence a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity.
Efficiency is only part of the formula; justice and fairness is far more important than efficiency itself. Efficiency is not an end in itself and must be made to serve justice and fairness. Efficiency represents the price of things but the true value of things lies in justice and fairness. If and only if Donald Trump sees things in the same light, there is a real opportunity for him to turn things around.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)