Future Imperfect

Democracy sucks.

It's inefficient. There's too much red tape. Nothing ever gets done because people spend most of their time arguing. And since when do people know what's best for them.

No one really knows what's the best way to live life, solve social problems, or be happier. We voluntarily engage ourselves in painful romances, have dessert when we it will make us gain weight, watch TV all day even if we know it's bad for us. Of course someone else should decide for us. Someone who's an expert. There's no better candidate than an expert to run the country. Let's all utilize our comparative advantage. Why think about Social Policy and Taxes when my strength is in computer programming? You shouldn't vote if you don't know anything about politics, right? Let the other people decide. I want to live my life. I don't have time for this bullshit...

And so it goes.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

We neglect all too often the Human Condition. Consider the following scenario: at a tea-restaurant in Hong Kong, two middle-aged man are swearing at the democratic icons like Martin Lee and Audrey Yu and one of them remarks, "I barely make enough money to live on, how can I be caring about democracy? Can I live on democracy? These politicians are not acting on their consciences, but simply their own interest."

Hong Kong people think like these two middle-aged men because they've never felt danger. Not danger like Bird Flu and SARS. That's nature. We're not talking about nature. We're talking about People. The last time HongKongers were oppressed by another group in the human race was probably in WWII by the Japs. If you've lived life through an oppressive government, you'll value your freedom. You'll start to understand the value of democracy.

The difference between the Pro-Democrats in HK and the rest is that they have Foresight. They can see ahead; they notice the dirty dealings within the CCP. They note how these guys trade with oppressive governments (being one themselves), mass murderers in the name of profit and progress. The CCP probably does the same things, only under the table. That is why the clairvoyants want to protect themselves. They want to protect themselves with a system, and to protect that system with media exposure. We don't have that much time left. 40 years, and the clock's ticking. Before you know it, 2046 comes around and the "50 year" deal is up.

The two men like their status quo. They are resistant to change. It's human nature. They are also protected, optimistic, and tend to believe in the good side of things, people and governments. When something is beyond your intellectual capacity, you want to simplify it. They are short-sighted. Their subconscious cost-benefit analysis is constrained to the short run. If you control for variables, these people probably also tend to gamble, have a low savings rate, and don't have pension plans (if it isn't becoming mandatory).

I don't follow HK politics close enough to advocate democratic change on a pragmatic and policy level. However, I support democracy in theory, even if I don't know when or how it should be implemented. Some people argue that the negative effects of trying to get there outweigh the positive effects of getting there, and some others are even skeptical about there being any positive effects (or difference) at all.

Others cite a survey conducted by HKU, where Anson Chan is leads Regina Yip by 5% for approval rate. They treat this as the dichotomy between "universal suffrage for democractic development" and "relatively pro-beijing/government stance" routes for Hong Kong, trying to show that there is a great divergence among HK people over the issue of implementing Universal Suffrage.

The statistic don't actually say much. It's a number. It would be rash to conclude that it means the HK population is divergent on the OneManOneVote policy. By being so reductionist about politics and society, it's hard to generate meaningful discussion.

It reminds me of Jason's radio debate this summer: the girl on the opposition cited that a majority of Taiwanese people don't want to "return to China", therefore it shouldn't. Political systems have never been implemented democratically. They're implemented by whoever has to power to. The public then conforms to it. If we had good emperors running the country, the lives of people aren't that bad. So why did we abolish that system? Because it is NOT sustainable. The CCP seems to be running China well at the moment. How long has it been? Less than 30 years since China open its doors. And Mao sucked before that.

Have Foresight. Think ahead. Stop Global Warming.