The fallacy of majority(1 of 2)

[이재모]

Autocracy and oligarchy were the preval‎ent political systems in the past.

However, commoners, unable to bear with both systems, replaced them
with democracy adopting the rule by a government chosen by majority vote.

The democratic government that represents the majority, naturally opts for

majority rule in all decision-making processes.

However, does the majority vote always vouch for the interests of majority?

Not always.

Ironically, the government elected by majority vote oftentimes works for

the interests of a handful of minority and at times, contrary to majority's

wish, makes the majority suffer an unexpected disaster.

Look at Argentineans that elected Peron as their president, who turned

the once the world's tenth richest country into the chronic patient of

South America; and Venezuelans elected Chavez as their president,

who turned Venezuela, the leading economic power in South America

into the poorest country in the world, despite the fact the country has

the largest oil reserve.

As president, he stood in the vanguard of anti-Americanism among South

American leftist governments, to which he offered generous economic aid

to make them his ally to fight aginst the U.S.A.

Germans elected Adolf Hitler as president by majority vote, who started

WW2 that massacred millions of innocent lives of many countries,

bringing about the apocalyptic demolition of human civilzation.

Italians chose Mussolini as generalissimo by majority vote, who made

Italians experience the bitterest defeat in the country's history.

We, Koreans, too, elected the incumbent president by majority vote,

who happens to have no qualm about representing just the interests

of a particular labor union instead of the interests of the whole nation

for the reason that the union has contributed to his taking power,

making political and economic decision based on his biased opinions

close to socialsm instead of keeping the principles of  free-market

economy that is firmly rooted in the intrinsic human nature and

therefore has made Korea what it is today.

No one can deny the fact that, even though this particular labor union 

vows that it has contributed to bettering the quality of life for Korean

laborers with its aggressive union activities, it has also undermined

the valuable competitiveness of Korean major industries such as

shipbuilding, petro-chemical, automobile, etc.

(To be continued on 2 of 2)