Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Asian democracies, disallow succession of close relatives to top posts
From Debatepedia
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
[Edit] Should Asian democracies disallow succession of close relatives to top posts? |
[Edit] Background and contextThe role that democracy plays in Asian countries is different from the role it plays in most Western countries. While many Western countries no longer have functional monarchs, royal blood in Malaysia, Thailand, Japan, Brunei and Nepal still own a special position and prerogative in their home countries. In Malaysia, the position of the Malay Sultans is protected by tradition as well as the constitution. Despite not owning direct legislative power, the Sultans still have the prerogative to reject or accept any bills proposed by Parliament.The tendency for political power to run within the circle of close relatives seems to derive from their historical monarch rule, where the people are likely to support individuals because of their supposed inherent leading capability, via bloodline. In India, the Nehru family's long term grip in the political arena has led them to be termed the Nehru Dynasty. The close relationship between a person's rise to power and his network or blood-ties in Asian democracies have raised questions as to whether or not it is the spirit of democracy. Corruption and nepotism that happens because of overlapping interests (familial and political) further fuels negative sentiments pertaining to the ability, through age-old connections, of a politically powerful family to ensure that interests of the people are not jeopardized. However, supporters of political families argue that the experience the family has and the effectiveness of governance is more important than upholding the 'principles' of democracy. Other factors in defending relatives' succession to political positions lies in the individual right to participate in the politics, and that a person should not be punished and exorcised from this right just because he/she was born in a family with another political talent. |
[Edit] [ ![]() Does possible cronism & nepotism or perceived cronism & nepotism supersede right of individual to run for post? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Does it turn democracy into a form of monarchy? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] NoEven if it did, it should not matter. What should matter when judging the effectiveness of a government is its ability to improve the living standards of its people. Even with a highly restricted democracy, Lee Kuan Yew and his circle have turned Singapore into a rich and prosperous country. The Kims in North Korea, on the other hand, have run their country into the ground. Succession is not the issue; the capacity of the person(s) succeeding is the issue.
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Does it undermine the credibility of the candidate & jeopardize his ability to serve the people? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] NoHardly. Those who grew up around political families may be better able to serve the people and may have more credibility than those without such experience. Consider the Benazir Bhutto's courage in navigating Pakistani politics or the unique credibility and savvy that Ang Sang Suu Kyi's father's legacy bequeathed to her. Again, disallowing succession would only make sense if all such successions were a bad idea. The bottom line is that many are good for Asian countries, meaning a blanket ban without considering context would stunt freedoms and prosperity in many Asian countries.
|
[Edit] See also[Edit] External links and resources |