Mask of Western-style democracy is slipping in British illusion of free choice

The current fierce competition among the Conservative Party elites to become prime minister of the United Kingdom must be an eye opener for those who worship Western-style democracy.

Instead of being its usually acclaimed "one person, one vote" affair, involving electors across the country, the election is a closed-shop exercise within the ruling Conservative Party.

It is a two-stage restricted election. First, two candidates are selected by a small group of 385 members of the Conservative faction in the House of Commons, and then the matter is put to a vote by the 200,000 members of the Conservative Party, a mere 0.3 percent of the British population.

The wider public and voters have absolutely no say in choosing their next prime minister!

It is going to be very enlightening to see who will eventually be elected as the next UK prime minister.

According to the latest polls, the former chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak had secured the highest number of votes from the Conservative parliamentarians. Yet a latest YouGov poll of the full membership of the Conservative Party strangely projected Sunak losing to competitor Liz Truss by a wide margin.

This promises to be a light-bulb moment, as while it appears that Sunak is recognized as a better candidate by Conservative parliamentarians who know his ability well, he is not the favorite amongst the rank and file of the Conservative Party.

The only plausible explanation may be Sunak's Indian parentage. The interesting question now is: would the UK, a country where "white supremacy" is in plain sight, be prepared to accept a highly capable British national of Indian descent as their next head of government?

The current political turmoil now causing country-wide disruption in Sri Lanka is largely the result of its adoption of a Western-style democracy that was unsuited for the backward country's needs.

When I first visited Sri Lanka in 2010, it had just ended its 26-year civil war but despite its poverty, all major infrastructure and government services seemed to be working and the country was showing promise to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

The problem began in November 2019 when Gotabaya Rajapaksa was propelled to the presidency, thanks to his extravagant unrealistic election promises, including impractical massive tax cuts that adversely impacted government revenue and fiscal policies, causing budget deficits to soar.

At the time, the country's public finances were already in a precarious state. The situation quickly became unsustainable when he tried to fulfill his election promises by a series of tax-cut moves.

In addition, the government unjustifiably handed out generous freebies and social benefits to the people which it could not afford.

To cover deficit government spending, its Central Bank began printing record amounts of money and borrowing from Western financial agencies, which could not be sustained due to the impact of the pandemic, Western sanctions on Russian energy and food supplies, and steep US interest rate hikes.

The Sri Lankan president was elected overwhelmingly by the people in November 2019, but in less than three years the country has been reduced to a shambles, all captured by the international media. Clearly the country's experiment in Western democracy has proven to be a dismal failure.

In a way, the democracy of the United States has fared no better as the election platforms of most candidates were replete with over-generous promises of tax reductions and more government subsidies.

Together with its huge military spending thanks to constant lobbying by the powerful military industrial complex, the US now has the highest national debt, $38.43 trillion, of any country, 768 times more than that of Sri Lanka! This is the equivalent of $86,000 for every adult and child in the US.

If it were not for the fact that the US dollar is still the acknowledged leading international currency and that there seems to be no limit to how much of it can be printed, the US should in all fairness have been declared bankrupt a long time ago!

The "one person, one vote" mantra, while appealing and appearing democratic, is simply not what it's cracked up to be in practice. It might have its uses in a popularity contest, but not in the search for the most efficient system of governance.

Its Achilles Heel is that massive campaign funding goes hand-in-hand with indebtedness to vested interests and the need to win votes through extravagant, and undeliverable, campaign promises to the electorate.

It creates the illusion of free choice, but most election candidates are only interested in ultimately serving their financiers and their own ambition, not the people voting for them.

It is a system in which corruption is euphemistically called "lobbying".

It's not hard to see that the whole Western democracy is but a vicious cycle of electing, regretting and re-electing!

The author is an adjunct professor of HKU Space and Council member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macau Studies. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.