注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

论老子

道,领导也。领导必需要不断呼唤,教导下属以及以身作则。下属的过和错皆因领导懒惰。

 
 
 

日志

 
 

Sovereignty and Democracy  

2014-09-25 18:12:05|  分类: SQ: Selfless Quo |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

What do you understand by sovereignty and democracy?

To remove any guess work, the definitions given in the following table give you a much clearer picture.

Sovereignty

Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.

Sovereign

One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:

a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.

b. A national governing council or committee.

Reign

Exercise of sovereign power, as by a monarch.

Democracy

1. Government by the people exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

  

Indeed, very few people truly understand the following statements.

1) In the absence of sovereignty, there is peace and harmony in the land because no one picks up the authority to oppress others.

2) When no one picks up the supremacy of authority to oppress the others, there is no need to shout for democracy.

Afghanistan, a landlocked country in Central Asia has always been a secluded region where many ethnic groups live in peace and harmony where there is interpersonal mutual understanding, mutual tolerance and the promote of mutual co-existence among the various ethnic group and the exercise of mutual benefits between man and nature has been the only way of life. When there is harmony between man and nature, it does not make sense to promulgate the concept of sovereignty and to debate who has the supremacy of authority to rule the land.

In December 1979, Russia invaded Afghanistan and immediately invoked the peaceful and mutual co-existence ethnic tribes to go to war, turning Afghanistan into hell of a most lethal battle ground. In the decade-long war, the cold hard fact is, the entire terrestrial terrain of Afghanistan was turned into a chessboard by these two foreign countries, namely, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the pawns are the young Russian soldiers and the various tribes living in Afghanistan, among which the Taliban fighters are the most fearful and they eventually forced Russians to completely withdraw from Afghanistan in February 1989.

After the withdrawal of Russian army, the various ethnic tribes who had learned how to organize themselves effectively to fight against the Russians turned to use their organized forces for advancement of their own political ideals, leading to political infighting. Political struggle is almost always the case of the winner takes it all, and goes not to take advantage of the new gained supremacy of authority to oppress the rest, more so, the challengers who lost in the tussle for supremacy. For no known legitimate reason, the United State of America invaded Afghanistan in year 2001 now acclaimed as a lame response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the twin World Trade Centre Towers, and 13 years now, the US marines are still bogged down in Afghanistan.

From 1979 to 2014, there isn’t a single day of peace in Afghanistan, and the clear culprit is, supremacy of rule exercised by two sovereign countries, namely, the USSR and then, the USA. To a much smaller extent, it was due to the unfortunate exercise of supremacy of authority by one ethnic tribe against the other tribes, a clear case of abuse of a new found sovereignty or supremacy to rule by people who have been so used to living in peace and harmony with each other.

In the first place, how does the supreme authority to rule comes about?

Here are three useful case studies.

Case 1: In the vast grassland of the Steppe, there is sovereign. The nomadic herdsmen may elect a tribal chieftain for the mere purpose of reconciliation of (usually minor) conflicts among fellow herdsmen. In time where there is an imminent invasion or infringement of their right of use of the pasture land the friendly tribes shall united together and nominate one of the tribal chieftains to be the supreme leader and thus, uniting them and effectively lead them against their common enemy. When the enemy had withdrawn, each chieftain shall lead their fellow herdsmen back to their pasture land and resume their nomadic way of life. The Steppe is once again, peaceful and there is no need for sovereignty over the Steppe. In fact, in the absence of sovereignty, there is no intervention of the supreme rule or authority, the serenity of peace and harmony in the Steppe abounds.

Case 2: In Afghanistan, there will be peace and harmony once again if the one who holds the supreme authority to rule the country, rests his authority and encourage the various tribes to go back to live their old ways in full harmony with nature. As it is today, the US marines are not going to quit Afghanistan, just yet.

Case 3: This is an extremely short glimpse of the Chinese history. During the feudalistic Zhou Dynasty (周朝), the sovereignty rested in the hands of the Zhou king (周天子). However, the real execution of the sovereign was in the hands of the nobles(诸侯). Western Zhou(西周) was rather peaceful and prospered for about four years. The Eastern Zhou(东周) began with the Spring-and-Autumn Period(春秋时代) where the nobles ignored the sovereignty of the land belongs to the Zhou kings and began to abuse the supreme authority to rule in their own state and covetously annexed the neighboring states to form bigger states. Eastern Zhou moved to the Period of the Warring States(战国) where seven huge warring states engaged in endless battles vying for the ultimate hegemony. Finally, the Qin state conquered the other six states and went on to establish the first unified empire, the Qin Dynasty(秦朝). 13 years later, it capital city Xianyang(咸阳) fell to Liu Bang(刘邦) who went on to defeat Xiang Yu(项羽) and once again unified China. Liu Bang founded the Han Dynasty(汉朝) and the sovereignty finally was in the hands of the Han emperors leading to four hundred years of peace and prosperity. The Romance of the Three Kingdoms(三国志) began towards the end of the Han Dynasty. Cao Cao(曹操) made a puppetry of the powerless Han emperor to reign supreme over all the other noble houses. He effectively took over the sovereignty of the Han emperor and founded Wei(魏). Liu Bei(刘备) took claim of the sovereignty of the Han dynasty by reason of his royal lineage and founded Shu Han(蜀汉). Though Sun Quan(孙权) could not make a claim to the sovereignty of the Han dynasty, the vast territory on the south-eastern corridor(东吴) captured by his father and elder brother provided adequate resources for him to vie for the sovereignty over the whole of China.  

The above three cases clearly explained this cold hard fact. Whenever someone finds there is an opportunity to exert sovereignty, the land is thrown into chaos. Suffice to say, whenever sovereignty is exercised, there is political chaos and endless fighting. 

Today, the common people, considered democracy means the primary source of political power rest with them. This is absolutely wrong. Why?

The sovereignty of a country rests with its government. However, few people understand the government’s supreme authority to rule is exercised either directly or through elected representatives. This system of elected representation is not democracy at all. There are two distinct and contrasting forms of democratic political systems where the elected representatives gained a right to form the government and thence, the supreme authority to rule the rest. They are:

1.    The America Democratic Political System. Let’s not discuss on this system.

2.    The Westminster Political System. This is widely adopted by the Commonwealth countries and is used to determine who is going to organize a democratic parliamentary system of government. It is in fact an imitation of the British political system.

Key features of the Westminster Political System

1)The King or Queen is the custody of sovereignty, especially, during the period where the Parliament is dissolved and pending the emergence of the result of the General Election.

2)The candidate for the Prime Minister is usually determined by one of the party leaders who supposedly had gained the majority support of the newly elected Members of Parliament. There are many cases where a single political party could not gain more than 50% of the total number of Parliamentary seats.  

2a)      When a party did not win more than half of all the parliamentary seats in the General Election, several parties shall form a coalition whereby, the leaders of the coalition parties hold privately discussion(s) and finally decide from among them the best candidate for the office of the Prime Minister. Let me repeat an important phrase, “hold privately discussion(s) and finally decide from among them” is absolutely undemocratic because this process of choosing the candidate to be the next Prime Minister is void of any participation of the voters.

For more than three decades, India and Japan had produced Prime Ministers by a totally opaque way of selecting a choice candidate by the few coalition party leaders. At best, their coalition parties are leaving the power to elect the next Prime Minister in the hands of a few selected representatives, namely, the coalition party leaders. This is not the kind of democracy where the common people are the primary source of political power where they are involved in the determination of who shall hold the supreme authority to form the next government.

2b)  In Malaysia, the Alliance, a coalition of three main political parties, namely, UMNO, MCA and MIC kicked started the country first General Election and went on to elect Tunku Abdul Rahman to be the first Prime Minister. The Alliance coalition parties invited several more political parties, especially those from East Malaysia to form Barisan Nasional. For In the past 13 General Elections, voters have a choice of casting their votes on either the coalition party’s ticket or the ticket of a contending party, say, the Labor party. It is not about choosing someone to be a Member of Parliament but rather, a Parliamentary seat for the contending parties. In other words, the whole election process was not about electing a representative to the Parliament, but the coalition party, as in year 2013 13th, General Election, the voters either voted for Parti Pakatan or Barisan Nasional.

2c)   In Singapore, the General Election is highly lopsided through a wicked manipulation of Lee Kuan Yew. Way before the General Election, he bankrupted or crushed the chance of all viable opposition candidates leaving behind a few hardly good enough to be fitting opposition candidates to participate in the General Election, all for the sake of going through a so-called democratic exercise of electing the Members of Parliament. Incapacitating candidates from the contending parties, way ahead of the General Election is the dirtiest game that demeans the entire democratic process. Yet, Lee Kuan Yew managed to fool Singapore voters their Prime Minister was elected under a democratic political system.

Let me make a recap of the above situations.

1)      The King or Queen of England merely symbolizes the sovereignty of United Kingdom. In actual fact, the sovereignty lies in the hands of the Prime Minister.

2)      All the Members of Parliament are elected through a democratic process, less deception or fraud or tyranny or other hideous ways of vote cheating.

3)      The Prime Minister is definitely not elected by the common people, but indirectly by some (not all) of elected representatives.

4)      The Prime Minister elected from among the coalition of several political parties is certainly not through a democratic process but rather through a horse-trading process among the coalition party leaders. As in all horse-trading process, the public does not know what had transpired during the election process to pick the candidate for the Prime Minister.

5)      In Malaysia, the General Election is not about voting a candidate as the elected representative but voting a coalition party with the aim of giving it the majority seats of Parliament or the State seats.

6)      In Singapore, simply there is no such thing called a democratic General Election. Lee Kuan Yew manipulated the election results way before the General Election is held by dirty means, say, bullied and bankrupting good-enough candidates from the opposition parties.

Conclusions:

1)    There is no such thing called, democracy. The people’s representatives are elected through a Political System which is highly twisted to benefit a few people who hold a commanding position in their respective political parties. Few people understand their Political System had misled the common people into believing there is democracy by people power.

2)    The candidate for the office of the Prime Minister is definitely not through a democratic election process because they are not elected through universal suffrage.

3)    Before the General Election or during the General Election or election rally, countless deceptions, frauds and even bullying tactics had been deployed to rig the election result.

4)    Most of the royal families or monarchies do not hold the sovereignty anymore. At best, they hold temporary custody and perhaps, a symbolic representation of their country’s sovereignty.

Further discussions:

1)         The President of the Republic of Singapore is elected through universal suffrage meaning, he is truly the elected representative to the highest position in the country. His office fully subscribes to the notion: the primary source of political power to this office rests with the voters or common people. Therefore, the President of Singapore can choose not to anoint the candidate to be the Prime Minister. The President can do away with the office of the Prime Minister and forms the cabinet to run the government.

2)             The Sultan of Selangor merely holds custodian to the office of the Menteri Besar. When Khalid was out-maneuvered, the Sultan did not take on the sovereign to run the state council. The choice of the next suitable candidate was an opaque game-plan played by Anwar Ibrahim who found there was an opportunity for him to exert sovereignty over the state of Selangor by shoving his wife into the office of the Menteri Besar.

3)            This is teaser. When would the political leaders accept the notion that the lesser authority is empowered to the office of the highest authority, there would be least harm to the nation? Lesser authority means:

3.a)       The person holding the office is least likely to oppress the rest of the people.

3.b)      There is more peace and calmness among the competing political parties.

3.c)       President George Bush Junior would NOT have invaded Afghanistan in year 2001 should he was vested with lesser authority, say, to invade another country.

3.d)      Lee Kuan Yew could NOT have decimated the number of viable candidates from the opposition parties should he was vested with lesser authority, say, hands-off a truly independent justice system.

  评论这张
 
阅读(227)| 评论(0)
推荐

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017