Why Oman’s system of govt outperforms Western democracy
Democracy fuels a race for wealth and power, causing endless conflict and widening the gap between the rich and the poor
Published: 05:11 PM,Nov 25,2024 | EDITED : 09:11 PM,Nov 25,2024
Now that I have had the privilege of living in my beloved Oman for a while, I can compare Western democratic governance with that which exists here in Oman. My experience of living in a country led by a Sultan is limited only to Oman.
However, I believe that other countries in the Gulf region have similar systems and when comparing Oman with Western democracies I cannot help but conclude that Western democracies as they exist for example in the USA and the UK fare badly.
In both the UK and the USA there have been recent General Elections. Both these countries now have new leaders. Those who vote (I and many others in the UK no longer vote owing to cynicism and disillusionment) always seek a political saviour to resolve there and their country’s problems.
When UK voters drop that bit of paper into the ballot box every 5 years with a cross against the person who represents their preferred political party, they are gambling that the next leader will be better than the last.
This is a risky bet on what is pretty much a two-horse race. I no longer believe that Western democracy works. It is by its very nature divisive and invariably results in electing leaders who place ambition over principles.
Western democracy pressurises politicians to compromise their values and avoid any tough decisions that, while they might be right for the country, risk making them less popular and unelectable.
The UK National Health Service is an example of this. All UK politicians know that the UK Health Service is “broken.” There are staff shortages, long waiting queues for treatment, and underfunding.
But for any politician to state the truth about the NHS during election time would be akin to political suicide. Plato, the most celebrated Greek philosopher of the ancient world, didn’t hold back in his criticism of democracy, calling it a recipe for chaos.
In his famous work, 'The Republic', he points out what he sees as democracy’s biggest flaws, claiming it’s incapable of running a fair and just society. Instead, he proposes a society led by philosopher-kings - leaders with wisdom and integrity. Sultans perhaps?
I have recently returned from the UK and when you ask a Brit what he thinks of our latest democratically elected government he will roll his eyes and invariably tell you that they are clueless.
Plato compares democracy to a ship where a clueless crew chooses an equally clueless captain. In his view, it’s a recipe for disaster - nobody on board knows how to steer! Without a skilled leader, he argues, the ship (or the State) is bound to hit the rocks eventually.
For Plato, the problem with democracy is that it hands big decisions to people who don’t have the integrity, wisdom, courage, or expertise to make them.
Democracy is by its very nature divisive. It is a ticking time bomb, tearing society apart by promoting personal desires over the common good. It fuels a race for wealth and power, causing endless conflict and widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
Western democracy encourages people, though not everyone, to put their desires ahead of moral values. In a society that is based on a them-or-us system of governance, there is inequality and division as opposed to unity and stability.
Most people who vote in the West are not thinking of the common good but about their self-interests. Most vote for a leader who promises to make their lives more comfortable with more material possessions.
Such a system encourages a chase for wealth and the politicians who promise the voters the most are elected. Such promises are rarely kept once these politicians are elected. And finally, let us look at the pernicious effect that the Western media has on the voting public during election time.
Western media is in the iron grip of a powerful elite with self-serving political agendas, controlling the news to fit their interests. By carefully selecting stories and framing issues to their advantage, these media giants shape public opinion, steering people to back politicians who will protect their profits and power, not leaders with real wisdom or integrity.
The influence of the media in a Western democracy cannot be underestimated. They convince people to vote in ways that serve the media moguls rather than the greater good.
I will end this article by quoting Winston Churchill who is reputed to have said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
Karim Easterbrook
The writer is Former School Principal Cambridge UK
However, I believe that other countries in the Gulf region have similar systems and when comparing Oman with Western democracies I cannot help but conclude that Western democracies as they exist for example in the USA and the UK fare badly.
In both the UK and the USA there have been recent General Elections. Both these countries now have new leaders. Those who vote (I and many others in the UK no longer vote owing to cynicism and disillusionment) always seek a political saviour to resolve there and their country’s problems.
When UK voters drop that bit of paper into the ballot box every 5 years with a cross against the person who represents their preferred political party, they are gambling that the next leader will be better than the last.
This is a risky bet on what is pretty much a two-horse race. I no longer believe that Western democracy works. It is by its very nature divisive and invariably results in electing leaders who place ambition over principles.
Western democracy pressurises politicians to compromise their values and avoid any tough decisions that, while they might be right for the country, risk making them less popular and unelectable.
The UK National Health Service is an example of this. All UK politicians know that the UK Health Service is “broken.” There are staff shortages, long waiting queues for treatment, and underfunding.
But for any politician to state the truth about the NHS during election time would be akin to political suicide. Plato, the most celebrated Greek philosopher of the ancient world, didn’t hold back in his criticism of democracy, calling it a recipe for chaos.
In his famous work, 'The Republic', he points out what he sees as democracy’s biggest flaws, claiming it’s incapable of running a fair and just society. Instead, he proposes a society led by philosopher-kings - leaders with wisdom and integrity. Sultans perhaps?
I have recently returned from the UK and when you ask a Brit what he thinks of our latest democratically elected government he will roll his eyes and invariably tell you that they are clueless.
Plato compares democracy to a ship where a clueless crew chooses an equally clueless captain. In his view, it’s a recipe for disaster - nobody on board knows how to steer! Without a skilled leader, he argues, the ship (or the State) is bound to hit the rocks eventually.
For Plato, the problem with democracy is that it hands big decisions to people who don’t have the integrity, wisdom, courage, or expertise to make them.
Democracy is by its very nature divisive. It is a ticking time bomb, tearing society apart by promoting personal desires over the common good. It fuels a race for wealth and power, causing endless conflict and widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
Western democracy encourages people, though not everyone, to put their desires ahead of moral values. In a society that is based on a them-or-us system of governance, there is inequality and division as opposed to unity and stability.
Most people who vote in the West are not thinking of the common good but about their self-interests. Most vote for a leader who promises to make their lives more comfortable with more material possessions.
Such a system encourages a chase for wealth and the politicians who promise the voters the most are elected. Such promises are rarely kept once these politicians are elected. And finally, let us look at the pernicious effect that the Western media has on the voting public during election time.
Western media is in the iron grip of a powerful elite with self-serving political agendas, controlling the news to fit their interests. By carefully selecting stories and framing issues to their advantage, these media giants shape public opinion, steering people to back politicians who will protect their profits and power, not leaders with real wisdom or integrity.
The influence of the media in a Western democracy cannot be underestimated. They convince people to vote in ways that serve the media moguls rather than the greater good.
I will end this article by quoting Winston Churchill who is reputed to have said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
Karim Easterbrook
The writer is Former School Principal Cambridge UK