Nobody can say that democracy is better than monarchy or vice versa. Or another form of governance is better than the other. It is a state of belief and thrust of the people in a particular place.

Jewish people were governed by kings in Biblical times. Theocracy was the form of government. Since people there believe in God and the prophets, the form of government follows its people’s thrust how to govern themselves–following God’s orders and orders of the prophets and kings appointed by God himself.

American people did not want anymore to be governed by the monarchs of England, thus, they formed their own form of government–democracy.

Leaders in the past, like the Caesars of Rome, did not just come instantaneously. They were put by the people in their throne or authority, simply because the people wanted them to be governed as such.

For me, it is more of an evolution and influence why a form of government is in place in a certain country.

To “force” a form of government other than what the people therein believe is evil. It is the people in their own to choose which form of governance is appropriate for them. After all, what can a king, for instance do, if all the subjects do not anymore want to follow him?

In the Philippines, the problem is we were not the ones who chose which form of government is appropriate. We just woke up one day that we have democracy in place, courtesy of the Americans. Previously, we were governed by the monarchs of Spain. The Filipinos now are confused which is the better form of governance.

But since democracy is our current form of government, then we need to live with it. The problem now is that we do not know how to use it.

The chinese in the 1980s were limited in their freedom by bureaucrats the same way a man defending his life is. Whatever consequences they faced, they can always blame it on the bureaucrat/killer who made the choice for them. By giving negative freedom, they would have no one else to blame if they made bad choices with bad consequences. Making good responsible choices were rewarded with good consequences. Hence freedom to choose one’s fate is necessary (BUT INSUFFICIENT) in teaching responsible behavior.

Example:
You cannot be held responsible for killing someone because he threatened your life and you had defend yourself. Your freedom to choose was limited.

I would like to point out that responsible behavior can only be inculcated in an environment of freedom.

Take China in the 1980s for example. My father went there and the people were VERY irresponsible. Why? Because they weren’t free to make their own choices. Some bureaucrat always made it for them. All they did was wait around till someone told em to do something to get paid. They were entitled to some agreed form of renumeration no matter what (positive freedom). Often, they would try to get away with doing nothing and expect to get paid nevertheless (that’s communism for you). Since then, China has made many free market reforms. People were now FREE to make their own choices, FREE to risk their own property, FREE to pursue their own careers BUT ALWAYS ALWAYS WERE FORCED TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE.

The result, NEGATIVE freedom taught them to behave responsibly. But it is crucial that people be FORCED to face the consequences of their own choices. This is what we need in our laws and constitution.

It is certainly correct that some law and order is necessary to constrain individuals for a free society to function (e.g. killing just cuz you feel like it). But that does not imply individuals are completely incapable of making their own decisions in other cases or that the gov’t is always better at making said decisions.

In a sense Jackie is correct that the Chinese (in fact any people) require order. But that isn’t the problem. The problem is HOW MUCH order and in WHAT AREAS do we impose laws that constrain individuals while leaving others untouched.

Economics has one useful insight: minimizing negative externalities. Simply put it means you FORCE individuals to face the consequences of THEIR OWN choices. Our democracy is screwed up because people have used it to subsidize their own irresponsible behavior. All people have to do is make a group large and noisy enough and the govt will give in to your demands. Paid for by the taxpayers. Nor is giving greater powers to govt going to minimize this. How often has your business or life been held hostage by a bureaucrat that just sits on his hands because he demands grease money? He doesn’t face the consequence of his choice, you do.

You may not have freedom for long without responsible behavior. But you cannot expect people to take responsibility for choices they were not free to make either.

Regarding the definition of freedom…
There are two types that have been identified: negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom is the absence constraints to do what you want (e.g. nobody stops you from studying to be an engineer). Positive freedom is the presence of the means to act out what you want (e.g. you are given the financial ability to study engineering).

Now I believe religions often emphasis positive freedom and don’t care much for negative freedom. Pope John Paul summed it up best by saying: “Freedom doesn’t mean to be able to do whatever you want, but to be able to do what you ought.” The problem here is, who defines what we “ought to do?”. The standard answer of course is God, the Bible, or something to that effect. But the practical problem is who interprets what God wants? History is replete with people claiming to have authority to do so. Usually, they end up as corrupt tyrants. I believe that we need to expand negative freedom because “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” and cannot be trusted with such power.

Promoting negative freedom will not prevent people from behaving foolishly/sinfully nor will it bring heaven on earth, but what will? I’m wary of any ideology that promises such. The USA isn’t perfect, but the framers of its constitution has achieved a balance and a result that is better than any other system. As I see it, perfection isn’t the point. The point is can we come up with something better?

Democracy and Freedom are very delicate subjects. Not everyone, including the lawmakers, fully understand what Democracy and Freedom means and how they should be applied in our lives. Why? Let’s look at America, as an example. America is the world’s oldest and longest living Democracy. According to my studies in American Political Science, the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution to afford Freedom to Americans. Nevertheless, they did not give the Freedom like candies. They reasoned that Freedom can be achieved if a level of responsibility among the citizens is achieved. Without a level of responsibility, Chaos would occur very much like the collapse of Rome.

However, America is not the most perfect country, even in today. They have their own problems. Does that demonstrate that America has the most perfect Democracy? I do not think so. Every political, philosophical, sociological ideas are not always perfect. We will always debate the ideas, and criticize them constructively (I hope so).

Now, if we can look at Chan’s comments – he indicated that Chinese people need to be at least controlled. I view that comment as saying that we need a level of responsibility, and any responsibility beyond that requires government to control us. It is more of a system based on trust. Of course – why do we have laws? The most basic law that we have always understood for centuries – murder. If we kill, we face consequences. But if it wasn’t for the government, who can decide the consequences? Imagine if we allow people to decide what our consequences is for our heinous crimes. Chaos would occur.

But again, who elects the government? The people. We elect our government officials based on trust. If we don’t trust our government officials, we can elect them out. That’s why America’s Constitution mandates that an election for the Congressmen/women shall be held every two years.

Without elections, we would have chaos all over the world. I think that we have at least a level of control amongst our citizens, because we have a responsibility to each other.

In conclusion, I think that Chan is trying to make a reasonable point here. Remember – the media is subject to their own interpretations, so are everyone else. Everyone may interpret Chan’s comments in many different ways, like the commenters before me here. This is the classic example of Democracy and Freedom that we all so much enjoy. I am not saying Jackie Chan is right or wrong – but he has every right to say whatever he wants, but with that right comes with responsibility. A Marvel Comics writer/artist once wrote – “With Great Power comes with a Great Responsibility” (Please correct me if I phrased it wrong).