Why not more press freedom? That's the question
*Electronically published letter to the ST*
It's was originally titled "Press Freedom Leads to Increased Ethnic Strain?" but I think this might actually be catchier.
Anyway, the letter that was printed in the print version by Mr. Peh is by any accounts a more devestating critique of the letter we were responding to. In particular, the use of Rwanda to show how a controlled press can be complicit in the actions of the government which in this case was genocide.
Like any debate on democracy v authoritarian government, it inevitably boils down to the fact that yes an authoritarian government can be a good government, even one that respects human rights in general. But the more important question should be, which system of government BETTER protects the interests of the majority AS WELL AS the minority? And which system better prevents corrupt etc.?
In prior posts here and here I argued that Democracy is not so much a noun but a verb or process of the creation of institutional checks and balances, accountability and transparency. Which is why there are generally a superior form of government. I mean, it's always conceivable that you could have a bunch of Plato's Philosopher-Kings or Confucian Li practicing Scholar-Officials but those tend to be premised on having good people which may not always be the case.
Labels: civil liberties