Elections Elections Elections everywhere. First it was Thailand, now it’s Italy and soon it’ll be Singapore. So Thaksin won, but he stepped down. So Prodi won. But did Thaksin and Berlusconi lose in the end? On the surface maybe but upon close scrutiny, well maybe not. Thaksin has announced that he’ll be back in power within a year and well, Prodi won by like what, 0.1%, which basically means Berlusconi still can do whatever he wants. So Thaksin and Berlusconi who’ve been in power for political eons are in form, no longer there, but in substance, they’re very much politically alive. And if I may take a leaf from my accounting/finance books, substance rules over form.

The similarities between the two are salient although I think Thaksin has been referred to as Asia’s Berlusconi before by foreign press (then again, foreign press writes anything and everything under the sun). They’re both filthy rich, self made and successful. The most overarching characteristic appears to be the grand autocratic rule in a democratic country. I may not have studied political science or what not, (and correct me if I’m wrong) but autocratic and democracy are not supposed to go together right? Well, technically not, BUT personally I feel that it’s the best kind of political system out there.

I think the main reason why I feel that way is because I think that free market capitalism works best in such a political environment (subject to the government being a rational one) and I’m a big fan of free maket capitalism. The figures speak for themselves and I like figures cos’ they don’t lie. They’ve both been responsible for creating more jobs and driving their economies forward. Ok, granted Italy’s economy’s in the dumps right now and Thailand’s under the threat of Bird flu and hasn’t been too pleased about Thaksin’s business dealings with Singapore’s Temasek Holdings. (Then again, the Italians haven’t been too pleased about Berlusconi’s business dealings either but that’s another issue)

Non-autocratic democracies just work less efficiently, in my opinion. There is an inherent flaw about them, by the simple virtue of being ideally democratic. Take a look at the biggest democracy in the world - India. I think India would do a LOT better if it had a one-party political system or something that resembled it. Oppositions always seem to be oppositions for the sake of being oppositions. They oppose cos’ it’s their job to do so - am I making sense? In the process of opposing and supposedly upholding the rights of a certain few, they’re impeding the progress of the nation. Dumb policies are introduced and seemingly benign laws are rescinded (despite claiming to be utterly democratic). If the central government needn’t have to bother about the dumb idiocycracies of the opposition parties every now and then, a country’s economy could certainly do better with the better utilisation of resources.

Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong in being labelled as an "autocratic democracy", despite the seemingly evident oxymoron. I guess it’s just a PR thing and the need to conform to poltical (theoretical) ideologies which may have been prescribed to be somewhat "ideal’. Peer pressure. I understand. Even the world’s greatest leaders bow to playground tactics.

That brings me to the question that begs to be answered. Do we really need "true demoncracy", or whatever that means? Isn’t an autocratic democracy just better for you and me who need jobs and the economy to do well? This way, we get the best of both worlds - the benefits of democracy and stability and onward progress. Why do we need to search for that elusive ideal democratic model? Should we even search for it?

I’m looking forward to the elections in Singapore. I’m so excited. I have to can vote this year!