I am happy to see that when I asked readers last Tuesday, 'Is any form of government better than democracy?' the response I got was: 'Yes, a true democracy.'
This means that, in the minds of the letter writers, democracy remains the best form of government - but that what is often touted as democracy is so corrupted and distorted that it should no longer be called democracy.
'True democracy,' wrote correspondent Jack Muir, 'means government by the people, for the people.' However, he noted, 'Unless money is taken out of politics completely, and unless the media industry is nationalised, there can be little hope of a true democracy anywhere.'
In this he was supported by Elsie Tu, a long-time campaigner for the underdog in Hong Kong, who wrote that 'universal suffrage alone in no way gives power to the people'. She added: 'Unless and until all election candidates are conscientious and dedicated to their people - and not corrupt, ambitious social climbers - there can be no true democracy.'
The argument, then, is that while true democracy is the best form of government, in practice it does not exist. After all, there is no way of ensuring that all candidates are conscientious and dedicated, except through a process of vetting. And who is to vet the vetters?
This takes me back to my days as a theology student, when various arguments were brought forth to prove the existence of God, one of which was the ontological argument.
