Sometime Democracy Doesn't Meet its Purpose

Until now democracy is known as the best mechanism in determining the best leader without violence or going to war. In democracy system, any government in a country who did not perform well can be changed or replace by its people through the ballot box. Besides smooth change of the elected government, the other advantage of the democracy system is the choice of the best leader being elected or chosen to lead a country.

However, democracy comes with it’s weaknesses too and it could cause it not to function as well as it’s suppose to be. Time has changed, we are now in a fast developing science and technology era, and the democracy system is still at the same point of it’s existence. Could it be our desires for it to sustain its old form or is it because we don’t want to be labeled as less democratic or anti democracy when we try to make even the slightest change to it?


Just like our present food and our dressing that went through changes as times past, I believe that democracy system, also need some changes to suit it’s era.


One of the obvious weakness practices of the democracy system is, we do not personally know if our candidate is genuinely good or bad. The only way we know them is through the newspaper, electronic media publicity or hearsay. Without getting adequate exposure of the media, a potentially good candidate will end up losing. And vise versa for someone without any credibility could win with flying colors with the numerous exposure by media. This shows how democracy is not functioning as it supposes to be.


The evaluation work can only be done successfully and satisfactorily if it is being evaluated by someone who is an expert in which his/her field that he/she wants to evaluate. For example, evaluating a condition of a building occupancy standard should be done by an engineer who is an expert in this field. This will guarantee a good evaluation is being done by an expert.


Similarly, in evaluating for a good leader, it’s not fair if we allow someone who do not know the candidate make a choice or to determine him to be a leader. The democracy is only successful if all the candidates are known well by their voters. This way, the voters will really know which candidate is best to be chosen. This will result to the best candidate winning with the majority vote.


To avoid the voters not knowing their candidate well, selection of the leadership should be started at the smallest level of the community of the states such as the villages or the housing estates. Surely the people in a village know each other well, and they know who are good and who are bad. Furthermore they know who would always take care of their needs and they’ll know who should be their leader to lead the village. To ensure a best leader will be chosen, the vote must be held at that particular village or housing estate where the villagers will know who is certify to be their leader.


It’s not good practice if we allow the people of village A to choose a leader for village B because they don’t know very well the situation in the village.


In a constituency made of several villages, a constituency leader should be chosen among and by the village leaders of the constituency.


In a district there are several constituencies. Using the same rationality, we let the leaders of constituency to vote for district leader. This pattern should go on for the voting of the country leader and the next level which is voting for a state leader.


I think democracy system should be change to suit the ever changing time, or it will be obsolete. However any changes we want to introduce, several considerations must be taken into account such as getting approvals from both the propositions and oppositions. Just like in the football game, all regulations should be followed and should be agreed by the two teams.


Thank you.