現代の迷信 （民主主義）

現代の迷信　（民主主義）

　現代は欧米の民主主義先進国が世界で最も栄えており、世界的な世論をリードしていると考えられている。しかしながら、近年民主主義国は減少しており、半数に満たないという事である。ところで、日本においては民主主義が至上のものと言わんばかりの報道が多く、民主主義政体への反省が殆ど為されていないようである。

　私は独裁と民主制とどちらが良いかと問われれば、民主制を選ぶが、絶対的に民主制が良いとは思っていない。衆愚制や金権政治に陥る危険性もあり、実際に日本の政治を観察すれば、決して民主制が至上のものではない事に気付くだろう。
　民主主義が至上のものだと言う事は迷信であり、権威主義と民主主義の中間が最善であると思う。

Modern Superstitions (Democracy)
　In modern times, the advanced democracies of Europe and America are considered to be the most prosperous in the world and to lead global public opinion. However, in recent years the number of democratic countries has been decreasing, and it is said that there are less than half of them. Meanwhile, in Japan, there is a lot of reporting that seems to say that democracy is supreme, and there seems to be almost no reflection on the democratic system of government.

　If I were asked whether dictatorship or democracy is better, I would choose democracy, but I do not believe that democracy is absolutely good. There is a danger of it falling into mob rule or money politics, and if you actually observe Japanese politics, you will realize that democracy is by no means the best system.
　I think that it's a superstition that democracy is supreme. And that something in between authoritarianism and democracy is best.

 

韓国の大統領弾劾に思う

韓国の大統領弾劾に思う

　韓国で大統領に関わる事件が起きている。過去にも同様の事件が起きており、その度に大統領の権限が強すぎる事が指摘されている。人間は環境に従うものであり、大統領の強権という政治システムの環境には悪が近寄るだけの事である。
　人間は現象に囚われて悪を生み出す環境に注目しないのは何故だろうか？

Thoughts on the impeachment of the South Korean president
　An incident involving the president has occurred in South Korea. Similar incidents have occurred in the past, and each time it has been pointed out that the president has too much power. Humans follow their environment, and an environment of a political system with a strong presidential authority only attracts evil.
　Why are mankind so caught up in phenomena that they fail to pay attention to the environment that creates evil?

 

独裁と民主主義の中間

独裁と民主主義の中間

　独裁的国家と民主主義体制の国家の対立が激しくなっている。独裁であっても明君ならハッピーだが、暴君なら国民は苦しむ事になるという長所と短所がある。また、独裁では余程注意をしないと独裁の頂点には伝わるべき世情が伝わらず、政権が暴走する事が多いし、これを止めることが難しくなる。中国やロシアや北朝鮮はこの例であろう。

　一方、民主主義は上の独裁のリスクは低くなるが、金権主義や衆愚制に陥る危険があり、現代の民主主義国の政治を俯瞰すればこの事を理解できるだろう。民主主義は政治が独裁者に牛耳られる事を怖れる余りに組立てられた政治思想なのだろう。民主主義の長所は、独裁者が出にくい事と世論を意識した政治が行われる事であり、短所は衆愚制の件と長期的課題は後回しにされる事である。
　つまり、独裁にも民主主義にも夫々長所と短所があり、ある意味でこれらの矛盾を解決しなければならないという事であろう。どちらに傾いても好ましくないのであれば、それらの中間を目指すしかない。

The middle of dictatorship and democracy
　The conflict between dictatorial nations and democratic nations is intensifying. A dictatorship has its pros and cons: if the ruler is wise, the people will be happy, but if the ruler is tyrannical, the people will suffer. Also, if you are not very careful with a dictatorship, the dictator will not be informed of the state of affairs, and the government will often run out of control, which makes it difficult to stop. China, Russia, and North Korea are good examples of this.

　On the other hand, democracy reduces the risk of dictatorship from above, but there is a danger of falling into moneyism or mob rule, and this can be understood by looking at the politics of modern democracies. Democracy is probably a political ideology that was constructed out of the fear of politics being controlled by dictators. The advantages of democracy are that dictators are less likely to emerge and that politics is conducted with public opinion in mind, while the disadvantages are that issues of mob rule and long-term issues are put on the back burner.
　In other words, both dictatorship and democracy have their merits and demerits, and in some sense these contradictions must be resolved. If leaning to either side is undesirable, the only option is to aim for a middle ground.

 

政治家の品性

政治家の品性

　前漢の創業者である劉邦は、宿敵である項羽との戦いの中で後の宰相となった陳平を得た。陳平は項羽軍にいたが、項羽を見限って劉邦軍に寝返ったのである。劉邦は陳平の能力を高く評価し重用したが、これを妬む者が、陳平は彼の兄嫁と密通を繰り返した男だと劉邦に讒言した。
　劉邦はこの事を聞くと、陳平を推挙した者に確認したところ、それは事実だと言われ逆上した。
　しかし、推挙した者は「陛下は高潔の志をお望みですか？」と言うのでどういう意味かと劉邦が尋ねると、次のように応えた。

　「私は、項羽との戦いの今、陳平が陛下の役に立つ男だと思ったので推挙したのです。高潔でも役に立たない人物をお望みでしたらそのような人物を推薦しましょう」

　劉邦は自分の不明を恥じたという。

The moral character of politicians
　Liu Bang, the founder of the Western Han Dynasty, got Chen Ping, who later became the Prime Minister, during a battle with his arch enemy Xiang Yu. Chen Ping was in Xiang Yu's army, but he abandoned Xiang Yu and defected to Liu Bang's army. Liu Bang highly valued Chen Ping's abilities and made him a valuable member of the army, but someone who was jealous of this slandered Chen Ping to Liu Bang, saying that Chen Ping was a man who repeatedly had affairs with his brother's wife.
　When Liu Bang heard about this, he checked with the person who had recommended Chen Ping, and became enraged when he was told that it was true.
　However, the person who recommended Chen Ping said, "Does Your Majesty desire a man with noble aspirations?" When Liu Bang asked what he meant, he replied as follows:

　"I recommended Chen Ping because I thought he would be of use to Your Majesty in the current battle against Xiang Yu. If you want someone noble but useless, then I recommend someone like that."

　It is said that Liu Bang was ashamed of his ignorance.

 

政治家の見識

政治家の見識

　政治家は基本的に教養があり、能力のある人物である事が望まれるが、金儲けに熱中している輩が多いようだ。そんな中でも我慢がならないのは、常識的な見識を持っていないような人物が、政党の幹部にいる事である。
　というのは、先日、テレビで「裏金問題を解決するためには、第三者委員会を立ち上げて、中立的な立場で改善案を纏め上げるのはどうか？」とMCが提案したところ、立憲民主党の幹部が、即座に反対したのである。
　私はこれを見て、問題を自分達から切り離して、この問題に関する制御能力を失うのが恐いのだろうと判断した。
　つまり、裏金問題を解消したいと言いながら、大改革をしたいと思ってはいないという事であろう。

Politician's insight
　Politicians are expected to be basically educated and competent, but it seems that many of them are obsessed with making money. What I can't stand is when there are people in the executives of political parties who don't seem to have any common sense.
　The other day on television, an MC suggested that "in order to solve the slush fund problem, how about setting up a third-party committee to come up with a solution plan from a neutral standpoint?" A senior member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan immediately opposed this idea.
When I saw this, I concluded that they were afraid of isolating the problem from themselves and losing control over the issue.
　In other words, while they say they want to resolve the slush fund problem, they do not intend to make any major reforms.