Q: Does efficiency matter in the democratic system?
I saw a video today that inspired me to think about the efficiency of democracy. A democracy, even a formal/institutional democracy, has a separation of powers, such as the separation of powers. The idea was to avoid too much concentration of energy, as in imperial or dictatorial rule. Usually, the government, parliament and the courts share executive, legislative and judicial power. The benefits of this are many, including balancing power and keeping each other in check. To avoid the emergence of dictators like Hitler and under mutual supervision, more transparency and accountability.
However, the downside of this is often overlooked, which is efficiency. Democracies usually have two - or multi-party systems. Taking the multi-party system as an example, the introduction and implementation of a policy or law must go through the approval of multiple departments and consider the positions of various parties, and all parties need to communicate balanced opinions. All kinds of processes are complex, cumbersome and inefficient and usually may not attract attention. But when there is an emergency -- a natural disaster, a pandemic, a war -- that requires quick decisions, the weaknesses of democracy are exposed. Compared with the one-party system and the centralization of power, the efficiency and speed of response are much lower.
For example, the fire in Hawaii in 2023, which covers a large area, endangered the lives and property safety of tens of thousands of residents. In such a major natural disaster, the United States government should organize manpower and evacuate people immediately. But it didn't. Instead, Congress met about the cost of the bailout and the pressures on insurance and the government to bear it. During the lengthy debate in Congress, the wildfires raged and displaced countless people, mostly Indigenous and civilians, on the island. It may be a coincidence that affluent areas were unscathed. But the rescue itself requires a quick response and action rather than partisan blame games. While parties dithered, bickered, and failed to deal with the disaster promptly, it was easy to miss the golden age of relief.
Another example is the evacuation of nationals from the Libyan civil war 2011. China was the first to send a naval vessel to Libya to evacuate Chinese nationals and the Chinese Embassy staff there were immediately ordered to ensure the safety of people's lives and property and ensure the evacuation of all Chinese compatriots. The embassy staff were the last to evacuate. Is it surprising that the United States, which has more than 100 overseas bases worldwide and the world's strongest navy, is not the fastest to evacuate its nationals? I found a more exciting thing through a visit to South Korea; a South Korean witness said in an interview: "He had asked the South Korean embassy, but because South Korea is still in the discussion stage and the government is still discussing, so he can not give a helping hand, hoping that South Koreans in Libya to save themselves and find their own way." What is more "interesting" is that the phone of the South Korean embassy was simply unable to get through, and these people were abandoned and could only fend for themselves.
Through the above incident, I think that the democratic system is reasonable and fair in some aspects, but it is flawed in handling such emergencies and is not an isolated case. What democracy needs most in a disaster is a helping hand from the government of the motherland, and it is timely to help them in the fire, rather than delay resulting in the rescue is not timely, however, I expressed emotion and sympathy in an interview afterwards. This kind of after-the-fact behaviour is useless if the efficiency can be faster if the various departments can simplify the process and quickly determine whether more people can be saved, prevent the situation from worsening, and rescue the affected people earlier. It is essential to know that for these people, more than one minute delay is not only a physical test and a threat to life but also a tremendous psychological pressure. So, an earlier decision may save more people (both psychologically and physically).
The question is: Is this inevitable in a democracy? Is it the price to pay to ensure the distribution of power and checks and balances? Can this "fatal flaw" be remedied through institutional improvement?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfEuxwO4tH8
Good points Shengyao. Note that in many cases, there is no difference between democracies and non-democracies in terms of emergency action; during the World Wars democracies did not prove less efficient at mobilizing the population, for example. But it is possible that in some domains democracies are less efficient!
ReplyDelete