What is universe and what is cosmology

c1) Democracy

{ Note:- I am releasing the restriction of Copy Rights for this page. Readers are now free to discuss, copy, translate or criticize the materials. The Copy Rights of all other pages remain restricted. } This very long page has just been partially trimmed and brushed up (12th Nov 2007).

Brief introduction :- In 1989 I wrote a long letter and asked a friend (through his son) to pass it on personally to the former senior Chinese leader Mr. Deng Xiao Ping. I was fortunate because my friend thought what I wrote was meaningful and agree to do it. I was hoping to present my views and urged the senior leader to open up China with bolder steps. In that letter I praised democracy and discussed various impending international trends, including the upcoming surge of interest in computer and music, etc., and also mentioned about my theory of the Regenerating Universe. I was highly encouraged by the positive reaction given by Mr. Deng who then passed on my letter to other leaders in Beijing. Then came Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, which strongly alarmed me. I thought I had not discussed enough international problems in that first letter and decided to supplement it with a second letter (please click to read) to be passed on through the same route. In this longer second letter, I talked about Saddam Hussein and also brought up the prolonged problems in Gaza. I suggested that King Hussein of Jordan could mediate for peace between Israel and Palestine. Then I send copies of both letters to Secretary General Mr. Butros Butros Ghali at UN's 50th Anniversary. President Clinton took action and got Itzak Rabin and Arafat to shake hands on the White House lawn through the mediation of King Hussein... Unfortunately, Itzak Rabin was soon assassinated and both conflicts in the Gulf and in Gaza escalated. Since then hundreds of thousands of life have been lost. Yet, what sparked me to write those two letters was in fact a hunch that the arrival of Halley comet could trigger off sudden release of both ecological and social energies, accumulated over long time and waiting to explode. This could bring about waves of heightened and abnormal human activities, both good and bad, resulting in great social changes, some of which could have serious consequence in the nuclear weapon age. As a result I consider that there are 3 large time bombs that would go of sooner or later, i.e. Democracy, Political Religion and the Nuclear Bomb. But if and when they do go off, it will be too late to write about...

This page is about certain kind of democracy that is spreading fast across the human world. I say certain kind because the original meaning of democracy has been altered. We can therefore describe democracy in two kinds, i.e. true democracy and apparent democracy. Historically, true democracy existed in two ancient regions. 1) Ancient Greece :- It began in Athens around 680 BC, and in the so called "City States" where the populations were usually small (less than 10,000). In such democratic City States, because of their small population, it was possible for the whole population to form the entire State Legislature, called "Demos Kratos" (Demos means People, and Kratos means Rule). So every citizen (females not included) became responsible for the business of government. 2) Ancient China :- There were 3 stages. Firstly, Chinese civilization was mainly centralized some 5000 years ago by one Huang-Di, or Yellow Emperor, whose great great grandson Emperor Yau decided that his own son was not fit to rule. Yau searched amount the populace and found a promising young man called Shun. He brought him to the palace, then tested and trained him for some years to do the job, and upon satisfaction, he abdicated in Shun's favour. Emperor Shun continued the tradition by abdicating in favour of Emperor Yue who had spent 13 years in curbing floods and channeling many rivers (the writer is a descendant of this man)... In the second stage, it was the time about 600 BC, which is parallel to the time of early City State democracy in Greece, Confucius initiated the philosophy for each individual in following orders :- a) Analysis of Matters, b) acquisition of knowledge, c) Self Refinement, d) Harmonizing family, e) Governing the State, e) Creating peace of the world... For the time being, let me call this "Confucian Philosophy of Universal Democracy". Lastly, the third stage, by Tang Dynasty, 618 AD, imperial China began choosing all government officials by 3 levels of academic examinations, i.e. the local, the provincial and the state exams.

This system of democracy by written exams was named "Exam Raised" ( ), which lasted about 1300 years in China until the end of the last imperial dynasty nearly a century ago. Unfortunately, this system of democracy by academic exams was destroyed beyond repair by the new republican KMT government in the revolution of 1910, who wanted to replace it with the widely celebrated Western style democracy. It was the time when the entire world of common people rose to take over political power from the traditional monarchies and the America and French revolutions were still fresh in memory. It was the height when the revolutionary ideas of people's rule were highly admired and widely written about. Thomas Jefferson's "All men are created equal" and Abraham Lincoln's Three People Principle, i.e., "For the People, By the People and Of the People" were introduced into China and became widely publicized and quickly accepted. This happened especially because prior to the revolution China had suffered more than 100 years of invasion of the rampant and uncontrollable opium drugs and opium wars. Above all, t he imperial administration had fallen into the hands of one enfant emperor and his totally ignorant grand mother, Empress Tshe Shi. Needles to say China was in a deep hell over run by corrupt officials and drug cartels. Yet that's not all, after the revolution almost as soon as the system of political parties were introduced to China, one party, the KMT Party, tried to annihilate its rival, the Communist Party, and civil wars ensued that lasted 20 years, even while Japan soldiers were already rampaging China. So, imagine after more than a century of uncontrollable drowning in thick opium smoke nation wide, which brought about opium wars, opium treaties, totally rotten imperial administrations, only to be followed by revolution, civil wars, Sino-Japan War, and finally by Second World War, life and proper political life in China had been totally disrupted for more than one and a half centuries... And yet, the name of Chinese "Exams Raise" democratic system was not even called "Democracy". That is why this single precious legacy of true democracy in human history was not even heard about by most people in the world...

It goes without saying, after prolonged national mayhem and pandemonium, the first duty for any man, or woman, or leader, was to struggle for survival above all other things. As a result, no one in China had the luxury to relax, until now, to think and remember how wise and precious their ancestors had left behind those centuries and millenniums of truly democratic, humanitarian cultural and political legacies. Indeed, for 5000 years ancient Chinese leaders had ruled only with the consent and approval of people, with wisdom and principle of harmonious, moralistic, democratic and humanitarian philosophy, instead of rule by absolute divine power, military conquest or political rhetoric and oratories. Through more than 2000 years of Confucius teaching, China was a mainly harmonious society without frequent or violent tribal or fractional or partied political conflicts. It was simply a cultured, moralistic, practical and harmonious society. It goes so deep and runs so long in the Chinese veins that even today those simple rural folks still can only be led with humane and moralistic qualities. But also because it has run so silently in Chinese blood for so long that most people, both Chinese and non-Chinese, have mistaken that democracy had existed only in the West alone. In fact, the "Exam Raised" democracy was the biggest, longest and truest democratic system of governance ever existed in human history. The Exam Raised system not only afforded each scholar to get qualified in subjects of science, literature, mathematics and sociology, it also allowed participants to express their written ideology, aspirations and commitments in governance before they actually take those responsibilities. That's why the Chinese society was harmonious by nature after the introduction of Confucian Universal Democracy and the Exam Raised democratic system...

In short, true democracy existed for a brief moment in Ancient Greece and for about 1300 years in China. These are the only people who ever knew what democracy really stands for. Only in Greece it was meant that the State was administrated by all people, educated or not, but in China it was administered by people chosen through exams, whereby scholars voluntarily and indiscriminately entered to be tested and qualified. Each candidate must compete in intelligence and prove his capacity for the job. Therefore for 1300 years Chinese government was administered by the qualities of intelligence and morality of leadership. Above all, a candidate could also express his aspirations, his belief and his written commitments to his job before he took it. Unfortunately, modern democracy is nothing but politics. It is not designed to create and bring about a harmonious and peaceful national political life. Instead, it is often full of fights, even cheatings, corruptions and in some countries riots, instability, violent bloodshed, civil wars between powerful political parties or political fractions. The individual, no matter how able and noble he or she may be, has no chance to serve the nation without the will and support of the most powerful party or parties. Yet, our world has advanced now deep into the age of nuclear weapons and nuclear technologies. There looms the threat of global warming, and the eventuality that someday the underground oils must run out. Some nations are already dependent on nuclear energy for more than half of their national power generation. Nuclear technicians are everywhere to be bought and employed. Any intrinsic national political conflicts will eventually evolve international subversions, secret global political alliance, arm sales, support or provocation of national disunity and other open or secret confrontations. International confrontations will develop into nuclear arms race and finally into inevitable nuclear confrontations. International treaties could become meaningless in the presence of political and military threats. People are not even afraid of ending their own lives these days...Yes, these are the realities of today, a stand off of escalating situation without a foreseeable end. It is also the naked picture of Western Democracy with its intent and its consequence...

Indeed, there are nations that would forcibly change other nations' government and impose on them faulty democracy or confrontational political systems that produce nothing but arguments, conflicts and civil wars. It appears that other world politicians are alarmed and beginning to seek nuclear weapon protection. Who wouldn't? So, it's expectable that roughly speaking about 20 to 30 years from now, our world could be in a major nuclear confrontation. Meanwhile, western democracy has boasted itself up so high and mighty to already symbolize the only just and rightful prototype of human governance, even human behavior. Such dangerous notion is bound to turn the world into a chained reacting and revolting total mess. All traditions, social bondages and precious crystallizations of human civilizations would become subjects for attack, while those untrue make-belief things, even entertainment medias, would enlarge to teach young folks more make belief violence and killings All these things are becoming the ticking time bombs for the 21st nuclear century. It is therefore imperative now to examine what that Democracy really is! What it is really made of and what it really stands for, before more nations would send armies and bombers to change other nations' governments.

These things happen coincidentally in the days when our home Hong Kong is trying hard to work out a suitable political system that would not only satisfy modern conditions but also carry on that harmonious, trouble free, successful and meaningful spirit and tradition of real democracy of the past, so that not only the Hong Kong Chinese people, but also all the foreign residents and business investors in Hong Kong, would enjoy a harmonious society with continued economic prosperity. It is also why many Chinese people today are hesitant to adopt fully that western style democracy, and trying to introduce more choice into the future system. In the up-coming passages the writer will try to scrutinize the pros and cons of the so called democracy unreservedly, because it is not only vital for Hong Kong but for the world as well, in this dangerous nuclear age... I sincerely welcome world wide discussions as well as criticisms on my writings.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modern democracy is basically consisted of power grabbing political parties. One begins the system by first slitting up the nation into fighting and power grabbing fractions. Half the time the parties blame each other and thereby may produce some limited positive and competitive results. The other half of time, they devote their efforts to strengthen their party interests and control of the nation. Their organized interests dominate the electoral system, making it practically impossible for an outstanding independent individual to serve the country. Thus year by year the parties grow in strength to dominate, and year by year the individual loses control of his State. In between everything becomes political rhetoric, and gradually the rhetoric turns a society into a patriotic force, and sometimes a military power. The flames of collective patriotic energies gradually cause international dominance or wars and invasions. Nowadays political and military confrontational energies could bring mankind steps closer to nuclear 3rd world war. Meanwhile, in order to win the votes and popularity contest, the politicians avoid moral issues and encourage random freedom without moral concerns, calling that human rights. Many forms of control and restrain become anti human rights, thus gradually making the society randomly free, immoral and criminal. As immorality and criminality grow rich and powerful, eventually the world admires and follows. Since everything becomes political rhetoric, the world also becomes a political battle field. Medias become a great power and influence to control and tailor the mind, and hence the controversial slogan "Press Freedom"...

Due to the influence and belief of brutal ancient politics and religions, and due to the discovery of bronze sword in the early Bronze Age as against those who had not discovered metal weapons, some nations had quickly and easily conquered and over run vast areas of the ancient world. Many of these cultures had developed and acquired the belief and traditions of wars and conquest. The fatal experiences of acquiring deadly weapon before others had influenced the quick and rapid escalation of the Iron Age, which had since developed into many advanced modern weapons. Thus history has shown that it was the early acquisition of deadly weapon that decides the fate of nations. It also reflects the fact, or rather the possibility, that any nation, foolish enough to stop modernization of weapons, is in fact committing its own future suicide. Only most people are still in their merry dreams and are unaware of such historical backgrounds and that history was made by weapons alone. This would now mean that the Prevention of Nuclear Weapons must be absolutely effective, controlled and adhered by all nations and not just a few. [Note: People are also unaware of what democracy could do in the Nuclear Age. Now the danger looms high that even after the lesson of democratic election and support for Hitler to wedge Second World War, today's democracy can still give legal and constitutional support to those relentless desires for invasion and victory proposed by modern leaders, which will someday have to lead to another world war. The coming days are long and dark for all of us under the threat of nuclear wars, but it probably wouldn't bother some leader of democracy... Man who would be elected by "Universal Suffrage" under "One Man One Vote"... Because any universally franchised leader would have the right to insist and pursuit victory till the end...]

Some those warring and conquering powers had also brought slaves and colonial immigrants to become parts of their own society. The result is a fractionalized society with great divisions of classes and ethnicities as well as hidden injustices and explosive social energies. To keep such energies contained, democracy or the slogans of democracy or equality, becomes a natural necessity, true or not true. However, other human societies that did not take in slaves or colonial immigrants continue to function in unchanged conditions with old traditional belief and cultures developed and crystallized by regional history over thousands of years. Their historic stability is now being forced to break up by the call of democracy, thus falling into fractionalized societies with political parties, causing disputes or power struggles, even bloodshed without knowing the real cause of problem. Recently democracy has also become a tool for invasion. By trumpeting up the false democracy and elections, and by splitting up a subject nation into political parties, then followed by assisting one party to succeed, one can easily break up the stability or tradition of that nation, and ending up in controlling that nation. Such modern maneuvers can cause civil war and wash the society with blood, which would then provide more excuses for increase of assistance or use of force. This was the story of China after the 1910 revolution... And yet, is democracy truly so democratic? I think it warrants thorough looking into!

In fact, after hundreds of years of practice, modern democracy is still not true democracy as it was in the days of historic democracy in Athens or in the legacy of ancient Chinese Tang dynasty. Instead, modern democracy has intrinsically become an energy of argument, unrest and split, and not an energy of national unity, and continues to be so. Dictators like Hitler are the result of such democracy too. Meanwhile, another negative development is that there are nations with parties, which have learned to tolerate each other, and in reality, they collude and share the power and riches of the nation quietly for many generations. Such nations are also called democracy. They may appear more stable and peaceful, but the reality is that people or voters can only have either one party strongman or the other, and have no other choice. As such systems become more deeply rooted each day, people are losing control to it by the day. After inauguration of power, a party strongman can rise to become an absolute authority, acting in defiance to the will and demands of the nation. As political parties become more powerful and arrogant, they are bringing their people closer and closer to the threat of nuclear world war. Unfortunately, voters think that taking part in election is the ultimate expression of democracy. Modern people have forgotten that the whole purpose of election is find the best qualified, the wisest, the most mature and the most humane qualities of leadership. The entire future of peace, strength, prosperity and hope of the nation depend on its leadership, but such qualities cannot be found in the political rhetoric and in the self interests of political parties. Such fatally important quality leadership cannot be obtained from two or more party strongmen. And yet, true democracy did exist in ancient Greece and especially for many long centuries in China. When an exam candidate puts down his written aspirations and commitments in governance, he must keep them during his national service. And since there was no inflaming political rhetoric, nor fighting political parties, that's why historic Chinese people never inflamed the nation to go for war and external conquests. And what's more, now they find it difficult to ignore such basic controversy in modern democracy...

In view of the fact that mankind is now living in the age of nuclear technology, and the next world war is bound to be a nuclear war. Also I have little doubt that global warming cannot be stopped without nuclear energy, I have little choice but to point out, without reservation, that there are 3 time bombs slowly ticking away, i.e. Political religion, False democracy and the Nuclear Bomb itself. Recently some politicians have tried to export Western style democracy all over the world, not knowing that they had merely ignited the fuse. However, the burning of fuse also calls for urgent exposure of true nature of the bomb to come to the surface. The revelation shows that by comparing what democracy should actually be, the modern democracy is in fact truly undemocratic and dangerous. The bomb is full of dynamites, and could easily go off before very long. To help warning why it could go off and what the bomb is made of, I have listed 30 ingredients of its explosive chemicals in the following, although there are lots more than just 30. Later on I shall also list over 30 examples of very recent troubles in the nations of democracy around the world. Then finally I shall suggest a couple of ideas for an improved system towards the end of this page :- :-

List of Principle Problems on Modern Democracy:-

The followings are some of the more serious complains contained in modern democracy, that need to be exposed :-

1) Under any democratic electoral system with political parties, the large parties control every election. For too many centuries and in too many the political parties have served to screen out un-preferred and un-favored candidates by choice of sex and ethnicity. Without the power and support of large parties, candidates from small parties, or from unprivileged ethnic groups, or independent candidates, have zero chance to be elected. Therefore democracy controlled by political parties does not represent the ideal of equal chance and equal rights, nor the hope of people to elect the best possible quality leader among all nationals.

2) Multi-party (more than 2 parties) elections do not always give simple majority (i.e. more than 50%). Governments formed by coalition of parties with different party goals do not yield, by nature, stable policies and performance in national affairs, such as defense or economic matters, etc.. This is a frequent phenomena of multi-party election. (See examples of 2005 elections of Germany and Chile in the upcoming list).

3) Bi-party electoral system is the natural result of evolution from multi-party systems, but it yields the least possible minimum of choice, i.e. only two candidates (one is not a choice. Two is the minimum) designated by the parties and not the choice of the voting public.

4) Loyalty to party and party politics or party ambitions destroy the aspirations and essence democracy and people's or the nation's real needs. It also provides the chances for frauds and possible cheating in election.

5) Choice of candidates by political parties and party politics do not allow real qualities of candidates to surface, therefore defies and denies the ultimate purpose of election, as well as search of best leadership. The above 5 points already sufficiently destroy the original principles and real goal of democracy.

6) In times of peace and economic stability, a bi-party electoral system very frequently ends up in very close and even voting results (Note: On Nov 18th 2005. Mahinda Rajapakse won Presidential election in Sri Lanka with only 50.29% out of total votes). This give rise to the chance and possibility of preconceived frauds or unfair competition in any stable nation, for instance, if one party could secure or manipulate say an extra 2% to 3%, even just 0.5% votes by hook or by crook ( say in the last vote casting stage ), then that party can be pretty certain of winning the election.

7) Political parties can easily become the stepping stones for the rich and powerful or the modern aristocrats to rule the land by making use of the party hierarchy and therefore side stepping the process of democracy or people's rule to become modern monarch. In other words, democracy may be controlled by manipulation to become a party candidate, and the possibility exists that election can be swindled with a relatively small amount of winning votes. So, the control of ones party, plus a bit of cheating could land the man on top of hundreds of millions of people. Even without cheating such candidacy stands 50% chance of becoming the head of nation.

However, here lies an even more threatening but real prospect. that is, by exporting or inserting such system into a targeted foreign nation, it becomes possible to take over the entire rule of nation by remote control. This may be carried out with military, political and monetary maneuvers and then make use of such above similar loop holes in electoral system to acquire legality of mandate. Such a juicy proposal is usually an offer that would not be refused by any collaborating politicians or partners in crime.

But that's not all, once that targeted nation is under control, it can be used as a tool or a coalition partner for a planned war or for use as coalition for further international political aggressions. In the end, the control of land and government may be preconceived with plots and obtained with relative ease, even invasions could be preconceived. Therefore democracy under the control of political parties can become a liability for international communities, especially in the age of mass destruction.  All these is not impossible, yet it would fool the un-aware people and look very democratic indeed.

8) The manipulation and acquisition of party leadership by the elites and the privileged, not only prevent the chances of real talents within the party, but also produce undemocratic national leadership.

9) From the above it becomes evident that modern democracy is a disguise for political parties to compete for rule. Political parties are then in turn ruled by modern aristocrats, which was what happened in ancient Roman Republic. when females and unprivileged were barred. People have no choice but to take what's given. Modern universal suffrage means mobilization of masses to confirm and rubber stamp the false system of democracy, and the mandate to make war. The mass participation gives false impression and satisfaction to the grass roots that they are enjoying free will to choose what is already fixed.

10) Political parties and party politics to acquire national mandates often provide dangerous power base for wars and potential disasters, such as Hitler's NAZI party and Saddam Hussein's BATH party, and numerous other examples. Yet, not all nations with single party rule, or nations with rule of monarchy, instigate wars or produce undesirable or unpopular leadership. Some of the greatest achievements in human history were accomplished under single leadership or leader. It's always the quality of leadership and its concern for the livelihood of people that counts and never the format of election or the politics or wars it produces that really matters.

11) The limitation of maximum two-term office under modern democracy does not give long enough time and momentum to construct maximum or prolonged social, cultural and economic stability. A proven quality leadership is quickly and prematurely cut off from giving continued desirable influences and performances...

12) If a leader, elected under such a system, can established a cause to start a war, rightly or wrongly, he stands a good chance to be reelected for the second term due to the predictable national sentiments in times of war. If and when this occurs, the system then becomes a temptation for war and could lead to long term destructive consequence of some unfortunate foreign nations. It could even escalate into bigger and unpredictable international repercussions as well as all sorts of revenge undertakings lasting into unknown future durations and administrations...

13) Universal suffrage usually includes not only good citizens, but also the uninformed, ignorant, uneducated, unrecorded criminals, rebellions trouble makers, ill intended and the corrupted electorates who do not always produce true electoral results, especially when the candidates are running neck to neck.

14) Bi-party election usually gives a small wining margin, therefore, in average, almost half the votes, in reality, do not give consent to the final elected mandate. The so called National Mandate is a falsity ( In the above said Sri Lanka election 49.71% voters did not give mandate to Mahinda Rajapakse. In the United States, the Presidential Election 2000 was one of the closest election in United States history. It was decided and won only by 537 votes out of the total of 5,962,657 votes in the "swing state" of Florida. )

15) Voter's turn out : According to statistic records from 1960 to 1995 (9 national elections inclusive), the average reported turn out of total eligible voters to cast votes were for instance: India = 58%, USA = 54%, Switzerland = 54%, Poland = 51% (figures from Mark N. Franklin's "Election Participation"). Such small percentage of eligible voters who actually voted during those 35 years gives false impression of democratic election...

16) Overall mandate:- The above overall turn-out of electorates still do not include the under aged voters, or any citizens or nationals not yet qualified or disqualified to vote. Now let's take the USA records as example and take a closer look. Supposing under aged youth and other disqualified voters amount to 15% (reality is far higher when the disqualified are included. Read more about the disqualified below in blue) of the total population. Deducting this 15%, the total eligible voters now = 85% of the total population. Out of this 85% eligible voters, only 54% of voters turn up to vote, thus the participating voters = 85% x 54% = 45.9% of the national population. Sharing this between two major parties equally = 22.95% each. If the winning party acquires 5% more votes than the losing party, i.e. winning party gets 25.45% and the loser gets = 20.45%. It means that a President would be elected by 25.45% of the total population. Therefore, 74.55% of the national population do not give the President his franchise or mandate. This is not particular for any one President, it's the average for 9 US Presidential Elections from 1960 to 1995. Hence, if you don't look closely, you will be swept away by the gale winds of press and medias, and would never know that a President is mandated not by the true majority. but always by an actual small minority of only roughly a quarter of the total national population, and yet acting on this minority franchise a President makes fatal decisions on economy and wars. The truth is, the vast majority do not give or empower the President with such mandate and authority. Yet this is root and very core of Democratic reality

( In fact, there are large allowances in the above calculations. For instance, according to McDonald & Popkin, the ineligible voters consist of about 10% of the total voting-age population in 2004, under age citizens not included (in fact the under-aged group is bigger than any political party). Alone in California State 20% of voting-age population is disqualified to vote, mainly due to criminal records. Besides, voter's turn out includes votes shared by other minority political parties. In the US such parties are: Green Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party and Natural Law/Reform Party, etc... These parties take away at least 3% to 5% votes from the total easily. Thus the true percentage of votes cast for the winner is less than 20% in those 9 terms of Presidential Elections in average. If the winning margin happens to be very small and the allowance of 5% wining votes disappears, then the President could be elected by about 15%, of the total population, or even less.

This means the U.S. Presidential mandate is a given only by an insignificant minority of the total population, and the value of democracy is hence also insignificant. Such democracy really means that a small marginal minority rules over the overwhelming majority of the population. In fact, it happens not just once or twice, but always, some over 80% of the population have not explicitly expressed their consent or wish to live under the elected government. So what happens to the hopes and aspirations of those 80% or more of people? Yet this is the true state, the reality and the system that is now the moral standard, the highest and the most legitimate prototype to be installed by force around the world. Thanks to the drums and trumpets of the medias that continue to blast away the self glorifying values of the Western democracy... We hear so much of the contempt, damnations and ridicules about people living under some oppressive regimes and are afraid to speak out. Now we witness the same thing when people are silenced for fear to be branded as unpatriotic or simply restricted by military rules. )

17) National leadership produced under bi-party or multi-party elections causes fluctuation in domestic and foreign policies, resulting in uncertain and unpredictable government directives and performance once every few years, for instance, one term of rule by one party the government would pursuit a course of peace, the next term of rule by another party the nation would take the course of war, all within a few short years, or even months. (I put emphasis on wars, because wars inflame hatred and escalate fears of attack, of revenge, of terrorism and of nuclear arms race or nuclear warfare, and of course, the reasons for making a "Police State")

18) Party politics is the main cause of organized ballot cheating that one hears all the time. So much and so frequent that the UN and other human watch organizations have to assume a role as observers in elections all over the world to check such possible cheatings. Such checking by a few observers has never been known to produce any useful results..

19) Above is enough to show that democracy exists only in name and not in substance, but electorates are either completely unaware of it or deliberately kept uninformed. The rights to vote become the rights to rubber stamp the party rule. So the system goes on unchallenged for centuries bearing the impression of citizens' fundamental rights and universal approval, which is gloriously hailed as "Universal Suffrage" or "One man one vote". So much that some politicians and citizens, thanks to press and medias, would believe it to be the ultimate ideal brand to believe in, or for export.

20) It happens now and then in a nation of Western style democracy that when a national leader's public approval rating drops to well below average, yet the leader doggedly refuses to budge and persists his own way as if nothing has happened, or when Congress, i.e. the representative of people, demand change, yet the leader still single-mindedly goes ahead unperturbed, i.e. all signs show a dangerous dictator is in the making. But the system gives him the mandate and power to do so. Then in the worst scenario that calls for impeachment, it becomes basically impossible to remove the faulty leader, because it requires 2/3 parliamentary votes to do it. With the private interests of his party and party members this 2/3 absolute majority becomes unachievable. The power rests on his party support and not the rest of nation. Such scenario gives dictatorship and renders democracy completely untrue.

21) The mandate obtained under so called majority consent looms so far above restrains that it permits irretrievable power to corruption, to steal and to offend individual human rights, national rights, and even international rights at will and unchecked anywhere around the world. And yet under the system, ordinary citizens do not even notice it, those who join the parties or have interests in it support it, others are powerless to stop it!

22) The leadership of a nation is an extremely heavy responsibility and serious business that affects the fate of citizens, the nation and often a great part of the world. It requires the best of character, integrity, education, experience, proof of achievement and reputation. The mode of modern voting system controlled by political parties does not give citizens adequate choice of such suitable and responsible qualities of candidates. Instead, party competition turns the business of election into a fanfare of popularity contest. Popularity contest could put an extremist, a fanatic or a political radical, or popular figures with wrong kind of expertise, or perhaps someday even a comedian to be in charge of the fate of people, of nation and probably, of the world. While at the same time, people of great leadership capacities and potentials can only watch in dismay. This is a major mistake in the search of meaningful leadership (Note:- Parents, Doctors, engineers, scientist, inventors, constructors, social workers, business people and workers, philosophers, theoreticians, teachers, artists, slaves, immigrants... all sorts of nation builders, you name it, all work to build an economy or a humane civilization, through centuries or millenniums. But one wrong politician could spend it or destroy it on wars ).

23) The defects and falsehood in the party controlled democracy are defects in human civilization, which can be rectified and removed by improving the electoral system or by new systems which aim to eliminate controls by conflicting and confrontational parties. While the refusal of rectification and insistence to spread a faulty system all over the world is a certain sign of prolonged hidden global conflict, which the age of mass destruction can ill afford.

24) An election consisting of 3 or more rival political parties usually produces electoral result which does not give any winning party outright majority of votes. If feelings or ideas between parties are radically different, such situation makes coalition of parties difficult and could plunge a government into stalemate as well as the nation into instability. In late March 2006 Ukraine's parliamentary election, preliminary results report that Yanukovych's party received 33.3 % votes, Yulia Tymoshenko's party received 22.7% and both parties' bitter rival Yushchenko's party received 13.53% votes. However, Yulia Tymoshenko demanded that if coalition is to take place, she must be made the Prime Minister, or else no deal. In such cases, it is possible for members of multi-party system to black mail the nation or the voters to acquire the power of rule.

25) Modern Western democracy at times could be prone to election of a less than perfect candidate, probably because the election tends to be a popularity contest rather than on the strong emphasis of intelligence, moral, or philosophical qualities. It boils down to a couple of candidates with unknown quantities and unpredictable potentials elected by a unrecognizable faceless public. The nation can never be sure what she might end up with. It is a gamble of people's livelihood and fate of nationhood, extending to fate of other nations. And yet with only a meager minority 20% population giving their franchise (see above item #15 and #16) to the elected candidate, the entire nation is made responsible for the choice, as such choice would be untruly labeled with the name "Universal Suffrage" and "One man one vote". But above all, if and when eventually the elected leader should turn out to be disastrous for the nation, then nobody is to be blamed or can feel responsible for, because the choice is made by an apparent sea of faceless and unidentifiable public. Such a circumstance also provides the elected leader the freedom for unrestrained desire to do whatever he wants, because his authority comes from a mass of a faceless public that cannot be clearly identified. The word "People" will always be used to take the rap. This can bring disastrous consequence to the people and the rest of world. (Note: However, this imperfect possibility can be greatly minimized and improved. See proposal for a new system in Hong Kong later in this page. )

26) Judging from the above analysis, it is possible for a ambitious politician to seize the power of the most war equipped nation on earth with relative ease. Once any such glory or victory loving person puts his hands on the control button of the nation and all those military powers, he would not be able to resist the desire of pushing that button. Once the war button is pushed, there could be no end to it until the desire of victory is satisfied by his own government or by succeeding government. Should any wars or verbal threats occur under any form of pretext or excuse, they would quickly cause many opposition nations to start arms race, and lead to possibility of many forms of retaliations or coalition of wars or world wars.

27) Now that you have read the above 26 faults, frauds and loop holes in the system, wouldn't you be tempted? Think of all the excitements, the respect, the authority, the might of military forces, the national power at hand, the international prestige and even a place in history to be had. Yet, you don't have to contribute to the building or achievement of any of those great things that have been made possible by billions of lives before you. All you need to do is to manipulate your party and get pass the voting ballots, and you can have all of those great privileges and loads more.... Therefore, the biggest fault of the Western democracy is the easy temptation to fraud and to do anything to get the power (Note: There are enough election complaints world wide under such system. See up coming list). You don't need to prove your qualities or your capacities or your contributions to become a modern emperor. Then after that, you can even put the rest of world in fear and apprehension, or to rise against your people too!) In such reality, democracy really means first splitting the nation into parts and then inserting a powerful temptation between the parts, so that in many less advanced nations the parts can fight each other or cheat each other to death, and the populace can either enjoy the fanfare or watch in dismay.

28) Human societies are not built for constant flip flop change of leaders, or leaders of unknown quantities once every few years. Sooner or later one of them will bring you surprise and sorry. In other words, too frequent change of unknown and unpredictable leadership would sooner or later land the entire human race in trouble and leave decades of mess for the nation and other leaders to clean up. Governments are elected to fulfill the trust and aspirations of its citizens. These aspirations are invariably peace and stability to live and work, and to bring up children in a peaceful, comfortable, predictable and protected environments. As it happens nowadays, the fate of nation and the people is no longer in the hands of people, but in the hands of party leadership, and the individual citizens in democratic country are not truly in control... Great human civilization needs un-waving and sustained leadership with people's trust and confidence over a prolonged period, often requiring decades under one mature and responsible leadership.

Flip Flop change of leadership is not the formula to accumulate and sustain peace and harmony within the society, which are the main requirements for the building of a positive and time honored great civilization. Because the greater it is, the more time, stability, mature leadership, good will and trust are needed... A 4 or 8 years term of office may, at best, establish some hope among people, but not proven reputation of leadership with required trust or faith. Because by then some Western democracy would have already forced another flip flop change of government and start an unknown leadership all over again..... In short, if you change a leader with unknown quantity every few years under popular votes by a faceless public, sooner or later you will get one who will start a war for you, and so leaving the rest of nation decades of animosities and mess to clean up.

29) The term "Universal Suffrage" or "Universal Franchise" to elect a national leader or a government sounds wonderful. However, in view of the many faults and limitations as listed above, the net results are not true representation of democracy. It appears that the entire populace is mobilized to perform a fanfare of electing from 2 or more prearranged candidates a new person to take the decisions and fate of the nation, but subjected to so many inadequacies, limitations and faults in the basic principles, which render the whole affair completely open to misrepresentation and plausible mistakes. Just as great principles, such as "All men are created Equal", "For the people", "By the people" and "Of the people" were claimed, yet unavailable to certain under privileged sector of society. Thus under the glorification of democracy lies the truth of party manipulations and the untruth of equality. All faults and corruptions ensue from private interests, control and power of large political parties, while persons of true ability and quality leadership cannot surface for national service. ...

[The above list does not include the big problems and small faults during the vote casting and during the execution or mode election used by different countries, states, cities, towns and voting stations, such as cheating, bribing, the voting machines, the types of ballot boxes, the electronic computers or computer soft-wares, the methods of counting and calculation, the regulations and irregularities of voting conditions, the discarding of unclear votes, honesty and qualities of responsible officials, controllers and related personnel, the methods of announcements, etc., etc.... If such problems are included, the list of possible controversies would increase indefinitely... And so far, no voting systems provides adequate official receipt with records or proof of vote for subsequent verification or reconfirmation, if needed.

Modern democracy is the direct product of evolution from nations that have had histories of ancient republican state, colonies and slavery. Such nations have brought colonial immigrants and slaves into their midst, which slowly demanded rights and forced the achievement of social equality. Such nations are used to the system as a slowly development of history. Unfortunately, there are nations that have none of the past evolutionary experience, and nations that are not yet well developed or as rich to share, as well as nations that are built on or depend on purely their own traditions and belief, crystallized over millenniums of regional cultures in order to achieve peace and harmony, once such democracies with polarizing political parties (Plus temptation of power) are introduced or forced upon these traditional lands, it means perpetual unrest, violence and bloodshed, often with no foreseeable end. It would be a long time yet, or never, before they are used to the power struggle of parties once every few short years. I have therefore made a list in the following to demonstrate that almost every month some nations on earth are tangled in election unrests directly caused by the misdirected charm of democracy. ]

30) The above 29 points only touch some of the problems in democracy and their associated complexities. These points are only related to potentials and consequences mainly within the nation. There are lots more complex and much more serious consequences relating to international matters. But here, I would point out only one more problem that may lead to permanent sorrows and regrets sometime during this 21st century.

When a nation is run and polarized by political parties, national interests will turn to rivaling politics. In time, politics will become national preoccupation and center of attention, and people's real needs would, wholly or partially, lose focus. If the nation uses privatized defense industries, such huge private interests will use politics or politicians to strive and compete with people's real needs and therefore siphon off national budget for their own interests. The more such industries grow, the more they will need to survive, and grow further.

Meanwhile, such vicious cycle escalates global arms race, nowadays nuclear arm race. Because national survival is always more urgent than observance of treaties. Unfair pressure in prevention of nuclear arms race will only create underground arms race, or complete collapse of treaties. Growth of privatized defense industries need excuse for wars. If there are no wars, they would have to create and invent wars (Sometimes the most war equipped nations are the most fearful of being attacked. Either it is because more arms create only more fears or it is just excuse for more arms and wars).

Any wars could spur off more wants to make nuclear bombs. And the smallest excuse will give chance to escalate more defense budget, and siphon off more national resources from needy people. Then, this will force the promotion of absolute press freedom, and of course, word wars or picture wars (now movie wars), or different forms of ideological or intelligence wars will be invented to divert attentions from internal social injustices and past wrongs. Al these things create tensions and inflame violent sentiments internationally, which would escalate and finish up in threats at both ends. Threats will energize more defense budget and siphon off more of people's real needs. Wars of words will grow anyway, and very soon medias of all sorts under support of politics will grow out of proportions world wide, which would be used as a weapon of attack or defense, or as tools of disguised propaganda, thus fanning up even more tensions, also in vicious cycles, sometimes accurately labeled as "Cold Wars"...

Eventually there will be nothing else in the world, except party politics, more politics, political tensions, private arms maker's unannounced promotion of politics, press freedom, wars of words or pictures, talking big and acting tiny, Cold Wars, complaints, condemnation of human rights, threats, calling names, pointing fingers, more home land defense and more defense budgets, arms race, disguised prevention of arms, under ground arms race, more words, more propaganda machines, more demand for press freedom, more excuse for wars, small wars, then more wars, more defense, more politics, more word wars, more budgets..... and finally a big show down or big blow up... of course, in the end, the nuclear blow-up!

(Note: What would happen if someone call you names, or ridicule you with not so cool jokes and turn your nerves boiling? I bet you would want to punch him in his nose! When a nation wants to start wars on his neighbours, it would first start its propaganda machines cranking and working over time... Cold Wars are made of nasty and frosty words, which then turn into hot bloody wars... It is always those cleverly presented but uncool bad-mouthings that precede the use bullets and bombs. Such bad mouthing is always called "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Press"! It is sometimes packed with more explosives than the bullets and bombs...

The world will never know peace when global fate, national fate and people's fate are in the hands of politicians, political parties, private arms makers and offensive or disguised Freedom of Press. The blames for of responsibilities would always be borne by the faceless voting public, or just simply "People", and charged to the name of Democracy under Universal Suffrage ). While the arms makers and war making propaganda machines grow to astronomical size, and political medias, the voice created by the system, grow all over the world. The peace loving people can only watch and hear. They have nothing to do with national decisions or the fate of nations, except the obligation to vote, to take the blames, to pay tax and to go to wars to kill or to be killed for the politicians, the political parties, for the power of huge propaganda machines and for the arms makers and of course for the prized word "Democracy".

Recently, a new Empire is rising fast globally to take over the minds and hearts of next generation mankind. It's the rising empire of entertainment medias. Of course, who doesn't love to be entertained? But watch it! That love is being used to teach and cultivate, day and night, slowly but surely how to watch and enjoy the killings and murder in numerous varieties, to laugh off wars and political atrocities and replace them with heroism and glory of death, or to laugh away any would be disastrous results of national policies or political and military undertakings, to glorify and promote loyalty, patriotism and nationalism, to blind the true vision of love for all living things on earth. More and more entertainers are turning into fate making national leaders... At this rate, all it would need is another 20 years! Then world wide efforts will focus on mutual excitation of political wars and developing suitable weapons. Someday aircraft carriers will be turned into huge coffins, foreign military bases will become mass burial grounds, and no one knows when, where and whose entire family would be obliterated. And no one can prove who done it. There will be suit-case little cute nuclear bombs, instead of waist strapped little dynamites. So, the next world war is not going to be pretty and small! And when it happens, who would get the blunt end of it? Perhaps those who like it and start it, wouldn't get any of it ?...

Yes, it's getting there alright! It might as well be for some people, because life for the under-dogs is no life at all, and life under barbed wires, under the terrorization and intimidation of soldiers, or wrong kind of politicians, or police, or prison guards are not worth living and are by far more dangerous than individual terrorists. There are enough common or ordinary people turned into suicidal bombers these days. Or haven't you noticed? You see what they do, but have you ever asked why?

In short, democracy engineered by competing and polarizing parties, under warped election of popularity contest, energized by private arms makers, teamed by political religions and religious politics, fueled by propaganda industries, charged to the responsibility of the faceless electoral public under the universal suffrage slogan, resulting in rapid change of flip-flop leadership... all of them are growing in strength in recent years again! They have started a momentum, which will sooner or later land the country, the people and the human race into slowly approaching nuclear confrontation when all sorts of nasty names, slogans and excuses for hot bloody wars and cold media wars, would become natural orders of the day, again!.... Does this remind us of the past? Is this the inevitable future of mankind? Or am I wrong?

[Note:- Recent event in some elections does show that even such "Two men" or "two party" system can come up with some remedial or corrective measures, provided there is a Mid Term general election, and provided that the situation has become far obviously bad, otherwise nothing will be done. And yet, this is also a crucial time to test the principle of democracy. For if democracy is believed, then people's voice (through votes) will be respected, and actions will follow. If however politicians carry on their own ways, no matter what the reasons may be, the democracy is something else... Besides, if once a system can cause one unhappy experience, then it can happen again and again. And the next time it might not be so obvious... Therefore it's the system, and not men who run it that are responsible for... Added Dec 2006]

Brushing aside the alarming flaws of modern Western democracy, let's also take a quick glance at its ancient roots. Judging from the scanty records and timing of history, the invasion of Christianity coupled with long centuries of political division under democracy in the period of Roman Republic (509 BC to 27 BC) appears to be the root cause leading eventually to the chaos and anarchy that began in the 1st century and exploded in the 3rd century Roman Empire. It was emperor Diocletian who attempted to pull together the chaotic anarchy by trying to eliminate the invading Christianity, but he made it worst and was forced to quit. This left successor Emperor Constantine the choice to reverse the course and give in to Christianity instead. He then ruled with the cruelest and most absolute measures to re-enforce his decisions, including killing his own family. So, in retrospection, Roman Empire (after 27 BC) was disintegrated by the residual splitting forces of previous democracy and glued together by new absolute forces of monocracy and monotheism. Therefore, history recycles between integration and disintegration.

( Note:- For that reason and in those times Jesus was propagandized and hailed as the "Savior". Although monocratic and monotheistic rule temporarily appeared to have reunited the Roman Empire, they did not "save" it, because the Roman Empire fell into more chaos and corruption, and was plundered to its final demise only a short century after Constantine's death. In fact, from the historical point of view, since Roman imperial rule depended virtually entirely on the claim of support from Gods, the very moment those Gods were under invasion and fell into confusion, the Empire was already doomed for total anarchy. Further more, although the acclaimed "Savior" did not save Roman Empire, Christianity did press on to put the whole European civilization under prolonged darkness for more than 1500 years. Human History would always remember those darkened days, which preceded centuries of consequential bloodshed, the slavery, colonial expansion and wars between man to man until world wars and nuclear war. One wonders if the 21st century and the threat of nuclear annihilation could finally put an end to such historic momentum and lift the human wisdom to a finally civilized platform? And politicians would practice what they preach, such as human rights or respect between nations, cultures and traditions! ... Or else how would this world end up? Perhaps it's not too late yet! Perhaps that's why people are killing themselves for peace or for hatred everyday and everywhere. And yet nobody is asking what is the true reason that makes any human willing to end his own life ).

These days, the so called Democracies bring along nothing but internal struggles between political parties, especially in less developed nations, and international wars, including the 2nd World War. There are two vital defects that are typical of Western democracy. Firstly, Western democracy is not a true democratic system, but a make-belief under an alluring title. See above list of 30 defects in the system. Secondly, the fundamental nature of democracy under multi-party rivalry contains energy of fragmentation and dispute or obsessive competition. Obsessive political ambitions coupled with party rivalry often lead to fanatical zeal or excess of patriotism, which then fuel the flame of external expansion and wars. If the national defense industries are privatized, such enormous capacity of the private interests added by nationalism or political maneuvers must lead to unnecessary external expansion and wars, and wars always inflame more emotional patriotism creating a vicious cycle. Wars also involve allied forces unnecessarily and spread the seeds of hatred and revenge worldwide. Wars also bring unpredictable short and long term consequences to everybody. Therefore, such democratic system could pose as a threat to world peace. If not controlled, it could become a cause of war in this age of nuclear weapons. But control must begin with the control of political systems and politicians. It's always the politicians who make decisions or designs to push the button, bombs can't...

On the other hand, it is quite understandable that internal political stability will lead to international peace and prosperity both politically and economically. Hence the necessary caution and the proposal of an improved new system. Such system is aimed at controlling the mutual excitations, both good and bad. between political parties, and spread out political energies and responsibilities to a new and much wider field of representation, which perhaps may be called Democracy by Universal Representation (see proposal towards end of this page)... However, I must also hurry to add that despite the above 30 defects in Western democracy, there are also some good stuff and merits in it. It's alluring title gives people the false impression that they are living in a state that is run and controlled by them. Such false impression also can produce formidable public actions that from time to time rise to correct social ills or national policies, although only to a limited extent. But when it comes to wars or international confrontations, the politicians can never fail to have their ways by drumming up patriotism and national loyalty. Patriotic rhetoric and big or glorious principles are the most efficient tools to evoke mob emotions. In the end, it is still the forces of political party and politicians who run the show. As to the matter regarding democratic choice of national leader by election, it boils down to the truth that political parties allow voters to choose from "next to nothing" (2 choices mean next to no choice!). It should also be pointed out that all politicians are in favor of such democracy, because they are the lucky players. A bi-party democracy means it's always the minority that rules the majority (Multi-party system is even worst) and to have all the fun and the dollars that comes with it. If you have the chance to be a player, wouldn't you love it? Or wouldn't you protect it? So, they are not likely to let go of it. It might go on for ever, because the voice, the power, the facilities, the resources... in fact, the whole country's life or death is in the player's hands! You are barely one grain of sand in a beach, or one drop in the vast ocean of faceless public.... So, if democracy is universally accepted and praised as a good thing, then why not make it real? So why not maximize democratic representation and minimize party control?

I am not proposing the encouragement of monocratic or autocratic rulership here, nor do I propose the return to old Chinese method of raising public servants by examinations, but I do think that it's time to begin designing an improvement or an intermediate system for the space age human society, because as civilization advances and human society becomes complex, anything that comes down from ancient time must be improved and kept up with modern needs. We are now in the age of mass destruction, which has become a major turning point of civilization, quite unique in history, it is time to advance our political system commensurate with our age and the dangers of out time. But it needs to go ahead with great caution step by step, therefore, to base on democracy and improve upon it is a cautious and appropriate step. I would have tried to include a list of advantages for the Western democratic system here, but since the whole nation is geared up to elect one out of mere two men or parties (or even a couple more) persons presented by political parties already strongly betrays the principle values of democracy, also in view of the defects in the system as listed above, which by far overwhelm any good points except the illusion that people, though only minority, do, in fact, participate in casting the votes to rubber stamp false system and give mandate to the undemocratic outcome, I find it academically pointless to emphasize such massive make belief as a positive act or motivation.

I now add in the following some examples of problems or faults in democratic elections under similar systems of Western style democracy, which has turned many countries either into riots or some form of instability, even violent bloodshed. These examples happened only within the short span of time in the last couple of years, showing Western democracy is actually the cause of regional instability. This can be largely avoided by adopting the new measures under development in Hong Kong (see suggestions towards end of this page). This list is incomplete, only a small numbers of incidents are chosen for listing here.

Examples of troubled democracy in recent time:-

(1) 2003, Charles McArthur Ghankay Taylor was democratically elected president of Liberia in July of 1997, garnering over 75 percent of the vote in an election that international observers deemed fair. But eventually he was forced to step down and go into exile for alleged crimes. It shows democratic mandate can be over turned by foreign and domestic pressures, thus becomes meaningless.

(2) 2004, Haiti's President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was the democratically elected in 1900, months later he was ousted by military coup and was exiled to the US, then reinstated in 1994. In year 2000 he was democratically elected again, but again forced into exile before his term expires in 2006. Here again the democratically obtained mandate had not been strictly respected and exercised.

(3) 2005, Ukraine's democratic election elected Viktor Yanukovych as Prime Minister, but the result was over turned and re-election was necessary. Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko then won the re-election. The complaint was organized or party cheating.

(4) 2005, In the Philippines, people repeatedly demonstrated in street, trying to impeach their President for election frauds. Her husband decided to go into temporary exile because of his own part in the corruption claim, but the President refused to give in and hang on. Such democracy does not give stable government and peaceful national life. Indeed, the situation evolved. Already since May 2005 there has been a legal impeachment against this lady President for her acts of bribery, and graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust. The unrest went on for months, with street demonstration going on. Then suddenly on 24 Feb 2006 the Philippino President declared national emergency and enacted Marshal law. With which she imprisoned marine leaders, military and police officers, a professor, 16 opposition figures including a left-wing legislator...

Still, large demonstrations went on in the streets calling her to step down, but they were driven off by police batons ... The instability continues on, and the situation is not likely to resolve soon... Looking from afar, what one can see is some democracy at work, where people elect and give one person the power to rule the nation, and the person then return to people with police and soldiers' batons... It's so easy to forget that the people is in fact the nation... When a national emergency becomes people's grievance against you and people give you the power, how then can you use the power against people, or drive off their grievances with police batons? But this is democracy! As soon as a leader is elected, he or she can invoke the power to go against the people, or against some neighboring countries with wars. All that's needed is an excuse, good or bad excuse doesn't matter... . In June 2006, the street demonstration demanding the President to step down is still going on, but the President remained unperturbed, with the protection of her own party it would be mostly unlikely to get 2/3 majority to impeach her. This democracy has been in disarray since the day of election.

(5) On 18th Sept 2005, German multi-party federal election ended in a deadlock, when the two major parties could not reach the electoral majority. Eventually after a month of negotiation parties SPD and CDU decided to form a coalition to rule. German political instability affects the economic stability of the entire European Union. Note: Germany has 4 political parties SPD, CDU, CSU and FDP, as a result, a winning party easily fails to obtain majority votes. A two party coalition government is not an ideal government because of two different party politics. That's why a multi-party system will eventually evolve to become a bi-party system, but neither 2 candidates, nor 4 candidates, can represent true democracy.

(6) Nov 2005 Azerbaijan's election, Human Rights Watch said that it would be impossible to hold a free and fair parliamentary election in Azerbaijan due to violence and intimidation of the opposition. European Union and other world medias also said Azerbaijan Elections failed to meet election standards, but no re-election was called. Such situation produces mistrust, disputes and instability after election.

(7) Dec 2005. Canada held federal election only in June 2004. Now Canada is forced to hold a federal election again on 23 January 2006, after its minority Liberal government lost a vote of confidence in parliament. The crisis was triggered by the party's involvement in a corruption scandal in the province of Quebec.

(8) On 11th Dec 2005 Chile national election between three candidates Michelle Bacehelet, Sebastian Pinera and Joaguim Lavin failed to produce majority (over 50%). The election must be repeated in Jan 2006 by reducing the candidacy to two contestants only. Yet, either 2 or 3 candidates prearranged by respective political parties for universal suffrage betrays the ideal of true democracy. As it is, no one can truly predict or ascertain the incoming national policy under the pressure of party policy or party members following the sudden change of party rule. Thus, national fate is subject to change once again! A change could be good or bad, nevertheless it is a gamble. A national fate shouldn't be a gamble in the design of its power structure. If a government is no good, people can and always do revolt any way.

(9) The newly inserted Western democracy in Iraq could be an interesting spectacle to observe. Since now all efforts, including war efforts, are said to be given to building Western democracy in Iraq and in the Islamic world, but the true result is building conflicts and civil wars in Iraq. If it should go beyond control, then someone would have to be responsible and answerable to history. It's only the beginning and hardly the end of story yet. So keep eyes and ears open!

(10) On Jan 23 2006, Canada re-election completed. Conservative party won with 36.1% of votes. However, this gives only a minority government. A coalition with another party is needed.

(11) At end of Jan 2006, Palestinians went to poll, Hamas Party won with over whelming majority and took 75 out of a total of 132 electoral seats. Now the question remains, as it depends on friends and foes around the world who advocate democracy will recognize the result as legitimate choice of the Palestinian people and give them the appropriate rights and supports... Unfortunately now many of the pro-democracy camps are exerting all sorts of pressures to force the change of Hamas' policies, for which the Palestinians people have elected them. Presently Hamas is facing dismal financial crisis. The world is in apprehension of what could yet happen in that unfortunate and stressful part of the world. .

(12) On Feb 27th 2006 Taiwan President Cheng Sui Bin suddenly dismantled the Unification Council established by the previous government that represented intents for peaceful unification between Taiwan and China. Cheng's action took place amidst his repeated indications to push for the independence of Taiwan, thus creating the possibility of war between the two sides, despite the objections and criticisms of many Taiwanese people, including the opposition party leader Ma Ying Jiu as well as the recent mediation for peace by the United States government. As soon as his signed the cancellation of the Reunification Council, his popularity rating dropped to just over 20%. Cheng's act is not an official declaration of war, but that would depend entirely on the matured and tolerant interpretation of his counter part. Many wars have been started with much less provocations... The question now surfaces. Is this what's called democracy? Is this indeed people's rule? Regardless of the historical backgrounds and whatever desires or ambitions Cheng may personally have. Has he the right and the mandate to bring his people towards possible bloodshed, or just the intent to create sentiments of war, or just to emphasize his personal policy for independence, or even just the removal of an established instrument of peace, especially against an opponent that is so much more powerful? If he has, then there is something badly wrong and awfully dangerous about the system of democracy in Taiwan. People should quickly rectify those basic faults of democracy, which is what Hong Kong people are trying to do!

13) On 20th March 2006, Belarus election, official results showed Alexander Lukashenko won with 82.6% votes and opposition Alexander Milinkovich received 6% vote. Lukashenko has already ruled since 1994. The result means for every 13.8 people that voted for the winner, there is only one voted for the loser. The difference in ratio is too obvious to notice. The public reaction in the coming months will tell if the result is true or not. These elections were overseen by monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe. The US refused to accept the results and suggested re-election. Some European countries criticized the results and the Russians said there was nothing wrong with the election. So, as usual such examples illustrate that democracy is none but what's in the eyes of the beholder..

14) On 26th March 2006, Ukraine's parliamentary election, preliminary results report that Yanukovych's party received 33.3% votes, Yulia Tymoshenko's party received 22.7% and President Yushchenko's party only 13.53%. Yushchenoko has barely been swept to power under the Orange Revolution and ousted bitter rival Yanukovych by invalidating a previous election about one and half year ago. Now Yushchenko suffers the reversal of such humiliating down fall. Anyhow, as Yuskchenko could never form coalition with Yanukovych, presently Yulia Tymoshenko is demanding that if her party is to join Yanukovych, she must be made the Prime Minister, or else no deal. Thus her demand amounts to black mailing the voters or the nation to gain power. But that's nothing new. And at this moment of writing, the national situation is still in limbo...

15) April 4th 2006, Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra resigned, after weekly large street demonstrations since January against him for corruption and abuse of power because he had sold his family own assets in the Shin Corp, a telecom firm, for 1.9 billion US$ to a foreign Co., from Singapore, free of Tax. However, Thaksin said he would keep his seat in Parliament and remain in control as Head of his RAK party. His opponents said Thaksin will wield his influence behind the government as usual because in effect he has not quitted at all. So, the fight is still on. Democracy in too many countries have long become the excuse and stepping stone for the rich and powerful or the party bosses to seize political power. And in order to do so too many politicians resort to deceitful means to get it... After a whole year of social unrest eventually the military staged a coup and ousted Shinawatra. Now bombs are frequent occurrence in that country. Some say it's the ousted Primier which is behind the bombs...

16) 12th Apr 2006, Italian national election results announced that Mr. Prodi won by about 25000 vote (ca 0.01%) more than present Prime Minister Berlusconi. April 18th, disputed votes were already clarified and confirmed by court authorities. PM Berlusconi still refuse to conceit defeat. He demanded to govern in a grand coalition with the winning party. But winner Mr. Prodi refused. Then Berlusconi threatened to make it impossible for the winning party to govern because of the small winning margin. On Apr 17th the Pope called for unity for the sake of nation. 18th April, the situation is still in stalemate as Berlusconi still wanted to share power and refused to conceit. In mid May at last Mr Prodi was at last sworn in as PM. However, the problem to govern the nation has just begun with such a small margin and in face of declared intent to disrupt by the opposition party..

17) During the last week of Jan 2006, election for Palestinian Legislative Council took place in Tulkarem Palestine under properly and peacefully conducted manners Voters turned up near 80%, even under occupation by Israel. Hamas won with a clear majority. There can be no doubt that Palestinians had opted for Hamas leadership and its well known policies. Voters must have also anticipated the difficulties Hamas will have to confront after election, but they still overwhelmingly chose Hamas for their government. If there was ever a clear indication of people's democratic choice of government, this must be the best example for the world to see. But the real problem has just begun. Do nations that advocate democracy, especially those that spread it around the world by invasions, respect the principles or ideal of democracy, and thus respect the choice of a nation and people? How much value would they attach to their preaching of democracy? Would they continue to call resistance to occupation "terrorists" and therefore is the representative of a whole nation "a government of terrorism"? Would they pressurize Hamas to recognize and submit to the authorities and forces of occupation on their land? What I am concerned here is what other theatricals and words of