Any democracy must stand the test of what works
George Yeo says democracy is never a 'one size fits all' system of governing, and the specifics of each must fit the context
Democracy is as difficult to define as socialism. I rather see it as a broad movement that seeks to progressively widen the circle of participation in the governance of a society. In that sense, democracy is a rejection of feudalism, a rejection of absolutist monarchy, a rejection of class or caste rule. It is never simply a matter of one man, one vote. At the core of the democratic ideal is the belief that while we are not equal physically or intellectually, we are equal spiritually.
The historical experiences of democracy have been very varied. We all look back to Athenian democracy, but Athens had many slaves with no voting rights.
Anglo-Saxon democracy developed over many centuries before the franchise became universal. It was only after the second world war that democracy in Britain meant one man, one vote. In the US, the blacks were only fully enfranchised in 1965, a century after the civil war, but whether this has led to their upliftment is arguable.
Our concern is not with democracy as an abstract ideal but the kind of democracy that is evolving. Does it produce good governments?
The Swiss had to confront the problem of minorities from the beginning, and democracy there took a very different path to Anglo-Saxon democracy, with each canton retaining a great deal of autonomy and self-government.
It can be said that the Swiss pioneered the idea of "subsidiarity". Political power should be devolved to the lowest level possible. In other words, one man, one vote should apply only at the homogeneous group level while one group, one vote should be the general principle at the federal level.
Thus, democracy in the United Nations means one nation, one vote, which gives one vote to China with 1.3 billion people and also one vote to San Marino with only 24,000 people. But of course, China is in the UN Security Council, and San Marino is not.
In Japan, what matters is not so much the formal voting process but the ceaseless bargaining and consensus-building within the body politic. In countries such as Japan and Thailand, money politics is deeply entrenched. In Thailand, corruption has led to coups and counter-coups.
We must not equate democracy with one man, one vote in a simplistic manner without taking into account the economic reality and the interests of subgroups. Take, for example, the UN and world government. The countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which are constantly preaching democracy to Third World countries, would be absolutely horrified if one man, one vote were to apply to the whole world. They will be dispossessed by the teeming millions in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The problem of democracy is not one man, one vote per se, but how it is translated into an institutional structure of power and government that is considered legitimate, is accepted by most people to be fair and just, and produces stability and growth.