What do you think?
Rate this book
Demokrasisma: Masalah-Masalah Dalam Sistem Demokrasi
Demokrasi, ia diagung-agungkan. Ia adalah sistem paling sempurna dalam pemerintahan sesebuah negara yang mampu membawa kesejahteraan kepada rakyat. Walaubagaimanapun, negara-negara “demokratik” yang kononnya memperjuangkan hak asasi manusia juga yang menghancurkan negara-negara dan tamadun-tamadun kuno demi membawa masuk hegemoni kuasa barat.
“Kegagalan kita mengkritik demokrasi membuatkan kita tidak faham permasalahan yang berlaku hari ini. Akibatnya kita menyalahkan perkara lain tanpa benar-benar memahami dasar permasalahan”.
Demok-rasisme, satu wayang yang cuba menyembunyikan sifat rasis barat dan Eropah.
“Kegagalan kita mengkritik demokrasi membuatkan kita tidak faham permasalahan yang berlaku hari ini. Akibatnya kita menyalahkan perkara lain tanpa benar-benar memahami dasar permasalahan”.
Demok-rasisme, satu wayang yang cuba menyembunyikan sifat rasis barat dan Eropah.
154 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2025
About the author
Syed Ahmad Fathi
19 books103 followersSyed Ahmad Fathi is an author and editor based in Malaysia. He received his Krasniy Diplom in the field of Marine Engineering from State Marine Technical University of St. Petersburg, Russia in 2013. He was awarded an Advanced Diploma in Ship Operation and Management in 2017 from the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers in the UK and was accepted as a professional member of the institute in 2020. He completed his Master of Arts in 2026 at Universiti Sains Malaysia in the field of Southeast Asian History. He has authored several non-fiction books and has edited numerous anthologies. He runs the blog
Meniti Jambatan Masa.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
June 13, 2025
Following the situation in the Middle East, the presence of this book couldn't be more timely.
The author possesses a deep-seated scepticism towards the institution of democracy due to its many inherent and practical weaknesses. I would not simply finish any contemporary affairs book, as many in its genre are merely polemical in nature. However, the strength of this book lies in its sharpness of analysis, coupled with heavy references from major thinkers. Instead of mere rhetoric, the author lets the weight of the argument carry his ideas.
I would summarize the main points of contention against democracy under the questions of who, what, how, and why. The author shows that democracy fails to answer these basic questions.
Who should participate in democracy? Socrates, one of Greece’s main thinkers, adopted a sceptical position towards who should determine the decisions of a nation. He raised the thought that not everyone can be the captain of a ship; naturally, we would be more confident with those trained in navigation. If that's the case, then why do we always think it's a good idea to let anyone decide who should rule over a nation?
How does democracy even allow the people to decide? Does it truly allow people to decide freely, or does it merely put them under the illusion of choice? The act of choosing one brand over three brands of cereal on the shelves is not a purely free act; we only choose from the options the owner of the grocery store allows. A specific phenomenon of this illusion is Tweedism, where the choice of representatives in an election is not purely the people’s choice, but rather individuals planted by the parties. In many cases, both or almost all of the candidates are under the influence of a single lobby. For example, almost all of New York’s mayoral candidates obediently consider visiting Israel as one of their main agendas, which in reality plays little to no direct role in the welfare of New Yorkers.
To what end does democracy stand for itself? The author takes Fukuyama as one of his main opponents in this book. He lambasts Fukuyama's position in "The End of History and the Last Man", which declared that democracy would be the "end of history"—as in, the final form of human governance. Fukuyama's position is unfortunately too utopian, as many calamities in recent history were caused by democratic political entities, such as the Nazis in World War II Germany, the Vietnam War by the American regime, and the continued destabilization of many countries after being "liberated" by American democratic forces—for example, Iraq. Certain societies simply cannot adapt to democratic tenets, as Fukuyama himself observed in the Solomon Islands, where the parliament became a mere reenactment of tribal situations.
The upholder of democracy, America, does not even support democratic nations that do not suit its palate, such as when Islamist parties won elections in Algeria and Egypt. This demonstrates deep-seated hypocrisy on America’s part and shows that democratic ideals are merely a means to an end for them.
Interestingly, the author briefly provides his own ideas on the inherent impotence of democratic governments. He adopts a pragmatic view, noting that good dictatorships get the job done—such as how China, with its centralized rule, managed to keep the spread of COVID-19 under control, compared to the pandemonium in the United States, where each state had its own stance on restrictions and quarantine orders. The author’s observation has historical support: under the comical democratic institutions of the Roman Republic, the Romans suffered devastating losses at Cannae against Hannibal. The army’s power was weakened by the conflicting orders of two Consuls who alternated command daily. In contrast, centralized rule under charismatic emperors such as Augustus and the Five Good Emperors ushered in the Pax Romana.
The author also contrasts some of his ideas with those of Tuan Firdaus Zainal. Firstly, he disagrees with Zainal's idea that democracy equates to those affected by government policies being involved in legislating those policies. This can be done via electing representatives who act as proxies for the people's will. However, the author believes this is layered with "illusions"—such as Tweedism—that limit the people's actual capacity to influence policy. He also disagrees with Zainal’s analysis that Malay political power will continue to dwindle in the current political climate.
I think this intercourse of ideas must be celebrated, as the progression of thought occurs through healthy exchanges and dialectic. The differences between these two thinkers, I believe, lie in their worldviews. Sowell distinguished between two types of visions: constrained and unconstrained. I believe the author adopts an unconstrained vision, as evidenced by his belief in substantial changes to the political landscape and his moral scepticism toward current institutions. Zainal, on the other hand, adopts a more constrained view, as his work aims not at radical revolution, but as a “shock” to awaken the Malays into action. His belief in internal reform through stable, incremental change is a hallmark of the constrained vision. Indeed, this dance of ideas between two young thinkers is much needed in our fatigued climate of political rhetoric and anti-intellectualism.
The author concludes the book by asking why we should continue to be optimistic about democratic institutions, when they have failed us at many historical junctures. The final chapter, written in the context of the horrendous situation in Gaza, ironically mirrors Fukuyama's conviction that liberal democracy is the “last” and most perfect chapter of human history.
This is not merely a polemical political book, but a sober one carried by critical analysis. Highly recommended.
The author possesses a deep-seated scepticism towards the institution of democracy due to its many inherent and practical weaknesses. I would not simply finish any contemporary affairs book, as many in its genre are merely polemical in nature. However, the strength of this book lies in its sharpness of analysis, coupled with heavy references from major thinkers. Instead of mere rhetoric, the author lets the weight of the argument carry his ideas.
I would summarize the main points of contention against democracy under the questions of who, what, how, and why. The author shows that democracy fails to answer these basic questions.
Who should participate in democracy? Socrates, one of Greece’s main thinkers, adopted a sceptical position towards who should determine the decisions of a nation. He raised the thought that not everyone can be the captain of a ship; naturally, we would be more confident with those trained in navigation. If that's the case, then why do we always think it's a good idea to let anyone decide who should rule over a nation?
How does democracy even allow the people to decide? Does it truly allow people to decide freely, or does it merely put them under the illusion of choice? The act of choosing one brand over three brands of cereal on the shelves is not a purely free act; we only choose from the options the owner of the grocery store allows. A specific phenomenon of this illusion is Tweedism, where the choice of representatives in an election is not purely the people’s choice, but rather individuals planted by the parties. In many cases, both or almost all of the candidates are under the influence of a single lobby. For example, almost all of New York’s mayoral candidates obediently consider visiting Israel as one of their main agendas, which in reality plays little to no direct role in the welfare of New Yorkers.
To what end does democracy stand for itself? The author takes Fukuyama as one of his main opponents in this book. He lambasts Fukuyama's position in "The End of History and the Last Man", which declared that democracy would be the "end of history"—as in, the final form of human governance. Fukuyama's position is unfortunately too utopian, as many calamities in recent history were caused by democratic political entities, such as the Nazis in World War II Germany, the Vietnam War by the American regime, and the continued destabilization of many countries after being "liberated" by American democratic forces—for example, Iraq. Certain societies simply cannot adapt to democratic tenets, as Fukuyama himself observed in the Solomon Islands, where the parliament became a mere reenactment of tribal situations.
The upholder of democracy, America, does not even support democratic nations that do not suit its palate, such as when Islamist parties won elections in Algeria and Egypt. This demonstrates deep-seated hypocrisy on America’s part and shows that democratic ideals are merely a means to an end for them.
Interestingly, the author briefly provides his own ideas on the inherent impotence of democratic governments. He adopts a pragmatic view, noting that good dictatorships get the job done—such as how China, with its centralized rule, managed to keep the spread of COVID-19 under control, compared to the pandemonium in the United States, where each state had its own stance on restrictions and quarantine orders. The author’s observation has historical support: under the comical democratic institutions of the Roman Republic, the Romans suffered devastating losses at Cannae against Hannibal. The army’s power was weakened by the conflicting orders of two Consuls who alternated command daily. In contrast, centralized rule under charismatic emperors such as Augustus and the Five Good Emperors ushered in the Pax Romana.
The author also contrasts some of his ideas with those of Tuan Firdaus Zainal. Firstly, he disagrees with Zainal's idea that democracy equates to those affected by government policies being involved in legislating those policies. This can be done via electing representatives who act as proxies for the people's will. However, the author believes this is layered with "illusions"—such as Tweedism—that limit the people's actual capacity to influence policy. He also disagrees with Zainal’s analysis that Malay political power will continue to dwindle in the current political climate.
I think this intercourse of ideas must be celebrated, as the progression of thought occurs through healthy exchanges and dialectic. The differences between these two thinkers, I believe, lie in their worldviews. Sowell distinguished between two types of visions: constrained and unconstrained. I believe the author adopts an unconstrained vision, as evidenced by his belief in substantial changes to the political landscape and his moral scepticism toward current institutions. Zainal, on the other hand, adopts a more constrained view, as his work aims not at radical revolution, but as a “shock” to awaken the Malays into action. His belief in internal reform through stable, incremental change is a hallmark of the constrained vision. Indeed, this dance of ideas between two young thinkers is much needed in our fatigued climate of political rhetoric and anti-intellectualism.
The author concludes the book by asking why we should continue to be optimistic about democratic institutions, when they have failed us at many historical junctures. The final chapter, written in the context of the horrendous situation in Gaza, ironically mirrors Fukuyama's conviction that liberal democracy is the “last” and most perfect chapter of human history.
This is not merely a polemical political book, but a sober one carried by critical analysis. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review