My parents drummed into me that there are two subjects that should never be raised in polite company: religion and politics. Their advice was based on the experience of my grandfather's atheist ramblings and left-wing leanings, and their explosive effect when launched upon neighbours at weekend barbecues. I had been too young at the time to understand that the angry exchanges at such occasions were not about the charred steaks but, more often than not, about what dear old grandpa had said about a stranger's support for a church-going conservative politician. With maturity, I quickly learned that the parental guidance was well-founded, and I have stuck firmly to it - except at times like now, when it has to be set aside to make a point about democracy.
Questions are being asked about the worth of democratic systems. Elections in Britain last week were inconclusive and it seems likely that there will be polls again within a year. Yesterday's vote in the Philippines was all about wealth and name recognition, not who is best to run the country. In a nation where poverty is rife, the poorest of the nine presidential candidates, Benigno 'Noynoy' Aquino - the son of former president Cory Aquino - is worth more than HK$3 million. Hong Kong's Legislative Council by-elections on Sunday go to the heart of the matter.
There is no more emotionally charged word in Hong Kong than democracy. People with vested political and business interests abuse and misuse it. Others freely throw the term about without understanding what it means. This obviously shouldn't be the case. There is no factor more crucial if our city is to move into its next vital stage of development. Without democratic rule, the forces that currently have so powerful a hold on our government will only get greedier. Leave them to have their way, and our remaining choices, freedoms and necessities will be siphoned off.
The big-business interests and pro-Beijing advocates naturally talk down democracy. Speaking of it as debilitating to growth, they imply that it is a Western invention that has no place in a Chinese society. I agree that systems of government should be organic, sprouting from the needs of a population, but to contend that an idea is bad simply because it is used by other ethnic groups is illogically arrogant. We should be embracing what works, not pandering to greed.
Of course, there is no perfect method of governance. What some provide in one area, they take away in others. My search for a nation that served its people with the best health care, education, judiciary and the like turned up a mixed bag of systems. In confusion, I turned to an American friend who had been a student of political theory at university, who helpfully put me back on track.
Good governance is not about handing out bribes and services to placate the masses, she explained. Rather, it is ensuring that everyone has a voice so that they can be properly served. There's no jackpot for guessing that the best way of doing this is through democracy. The basis of the ideology - and it is just that, not an off-the-shelf model that can be transplanted from one place to another - is protecting the rights of the minority over the majority. If wonderful health care and education flows on from that, it's an added bonus, not an essential consequence.