What is Democracy? - Asian Perspective
-
I have actually written a Chinese article on the values of Democratic system which I am holding it back here because I have sent to the Chinese newspaper ZaoBao in response to one of their reporter's question on why I choose to put up my views on blog but not the local media. I am just making a subtle point that blog has its advantages, especially in Singapore's context, that it could carry the message in its complete form without any distortions. I will be posting the original article here on Monday.
Incidentally, not so long ago, someone has emailed me to talk about the "compatibility" between "Asian values" vs "Western" Democracy. It just happens that I have some interests in the late Dr. Sun Yat-Sen's historic struggle in the late 19th century and early 20th century after watching the lengthy Chinese TV series, "Towards Republic".
The most common "theory" that PAP comes up to rationalize its legitimacy in monopolizing power in Singapore is that Western Democracy is "not suitable" for Asian countries. This is a flawed assumption. More than 100 years ago, there was already an Asian intellect that has thought about designing a democratic system that is suitable for Asian largest country, China. That is Dr. Sun Yat Sen.
There are quite a number of studies and commentaries we could find on the net about Dr. Sun's theory of "Separating of the FIVE Powers". However, I prefer to look at Dr. Sun's very own speech in Mandarin to form my own opinion.
Dr. Sun has pointed out an interesting observation: In the Western world, Democratic Reform or revolutions were normally aimed at achieving "Freedom" or "Liberation" from the harsh control of the feudal lords. But in Dr. Sun's struggle, it was a revolution against the corruptions of the Qing administration to set up a Republic government that is based on democratic principles of checks and balances. He recognized the need to curb certain liberty or freedom of the people to avoid anarchist result but at the same time, provide an effective control over the government administration to avoid tyrannic rule due to the power that it holds. Most important of all, it is more of a dream of building a government that is totally responsible towards the interests and welfare of the people.
This is very different from the Western "liberalization" movement that aimed at achieving "freedom". The Western Democratic theory involves separation of powers in various ways. The British system is based on Constitutional Monarch which achieves the aim of separation of power from the Monarch to the parliament which is a representation of "people's power". However, it does not have a clear systematic way of separating powers within the system. The British has experimented a different set of system in Hong Kong before it handed it over to China. Instead of a parliamentary system like the British, it has in fact created an executive arm vs the legislative arm, dividing the powers between the two. Apart of having the Judiciary fiercely independent, it also has the very diverse press as one of the public opinion platform to check on the government. The Legislative Council is elected from a proportionate representation election system couple with "functional group representation" which ensures diverse views of the society are adequately represented.
This is actually the trend of the democratic reforms over the the years. The American democratic system is based on the separation of the three powers: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. The "fourth power" is always referred to the role of press freedom or rights in exposing flaws of the government of the day. However, technically speaking, the power of impeachment is still embedded within the Congress and Senate instead of being separated out.
Dr. Sun has taken the American's model as a case study for his own research instead of the British system basically because he felt that the basic separation of powers in the British system is very lacking. The Executive and the Legislative powers are mixed as the executive Prime Minister is being selected from the majority party in the legislative parliament.
However, he has extended the concept of separation of powers into FIVE instead of Three which are exhibited by the American model. This concept of Five powers, ironically, is derived from the Chinese feudal systems of the past. In Chinese ancient history, its advanced system of governance is something that has been a model for many other empires. Its system of governance includes the executive powers held by the Emperor, the Imperial court of senior ministers that set laws, the Judiciary department to carry out vetting of court cases, a specially created bureau which has powers of impeachment of court officials and a system of imperial examination which select talents to become court officials.
The only problem with this feudal system is that these five power are being concentrated under the Emperor's court instead of being separated. Technically speaking, the bureau that empowered with impeachment function should be made independent and protected from persecution but this is hardly so in practice.
The idea of including the Examination Power in Dr. Sun's democratic reform is to ensure that the civil service as well as politicians are being examined for their "proficiency". In my view, such examination system may be good to ensure the civil service is being staffed with quality people, but it will hinder universal suffrage of politicians based on the electoral process. It would mean that candidates have to be "screened" by whatever means before they are eligible to be elected by the people as their representatives. Such system will actually end up with a congress or parliament filled with elites which may not fully represent the whole spectrum of the societies. Elitist system with elitist legislative representatives will end up with a disconnected power from the ground.
Thus instead, I think the Power of Examination Power should only apply to civil servants selection process while for the electoral process, we need an independent Election department to ensure that gerrymandering is being used as a means by individuals or political parties to entrench their monopoly of power.
In fact, I would advocate a electoral system that is based on proportionate representation which could avoid the tyranny of majority rule. Only such system would promote all round inclusive governance. Democracy is not merely about "majority rule". Such thinking is one of the most crude primitive understanding of Democracy. Many of the advanced Democracy in Europe has shifted to proportionate representation system to ensure that there is sufficient checks and balances within the political system and decisions are made through real consensus making that is inclusive in nature, not bulldozed through by mere tyrannic of majority rule. Interesting enough, the British has in fact experimented the concept of proportionate representation in Hong Kong in spite of the fact that it has a commonwealth style of Westminster parliamentary system.
In fact, if we look at the whole Hong Kong political structure, it has more or less followed Dr. Sun's concept of Separation of Five Powers except for the electoral system. In Hong Kong, there are special examinations designed for those who aspired to be civil servants, regardless of their paper qualifications. The famous ICAC is very independent empowered with the task of checking on the politicians, civil service as well as corrupt practices among the private companies. The Judiciary system is also "fiercely" independent. Although the executive arm, Chief Executive and his cabinet ministers, are not elected directly by universal suffrage, but its power has been restricted and independent from the Legislative Council (Legco). There are further separation of functions from the elected representatives. There are two types of representatives elected from the people. One is for the Legco, the other is for the respective grassroots representatives of Town Councilors. Apart from all these separation of the Five Powers, the freedom of the press has acted as an independent subsidiary arm of checks and balances.
Thus, I would say that even if Hong Kong is not a country by itself but a special administration of China, it has demonstrated that practicing democracy in an Asian society is possible and there is no "conflicts" or "incompatibility" problems between Asian Values vs Democratic Values.
The ultimate aim of any political system is to seek a stable and long lasting governing system for the society. Historical experiences have shown us that any system that is based totally on "freedom" or "concentration of power" is unstable and undesirable for the society. Democracy is not solely about "freedom" or even "human rights" but it is about building up a political cum governing system that is beneficial to the people, for the people, by the people.
In Asian context, there is nothing "special" for it to deviate from such universal desires. The European countries have gone through various political experiments with Marxism, Socialism, Communism, even Fascism to come to one simple conclusion that any power that concentrate too much power with little checks and balances inbuilt within the system is totally undesirable. We have also learned that total freedom - Anarchist does not work at all in modern days' complex society. I would say that in Asian history, ancient Chinese administration has provided a concept of what a government should possess in terms of powers as well as the necessary checks and balances needed to make it works. However, what is lacking is the concept of separation of such powers in past dynasties.
To say that Asian Values is not compatible to Democracy or vice verse is really far from the truth. Either in theory or practice, Asian societies have evolved and implemented successfully to a certain degree, a Democratic system that is tailored made according to the traditional concept of powers.
In Singapore's context, our political system is far from democratic because we are facing the same problem of Chinese dynasties whereby most of the powers are concentrated to a few individuals or the ruling party. This is unhealthy and it may just face the same ups and downs or even crisis like the Chinese dynasties. I feel that instead of focusing our effort in "fighting for freedom" or "rights", the most important and urgent thing for us to pursue is to develop a more balance political system by designing a proportionate representation electoral system couple with an effective separation of the Five powers.
This is basically my political aim for my lifetime.
Goh Meng Seng -
The Chinese article that is published on today's ZaoBao (being edited out some of paragraph):
民主制度的意义
在双十节前后拜读了贵报交流站关于“民主”的讨论，我觉得还蛮有意思的。既然是双十节，我就从孙中山先生的三民主义和五权分立谈“亚洲式的民主”吧！
首先，为何谈“亚洲式民主”呢？执政的人民行动党经常说西方民主制度不能照搬，不适合亚洲民情。但事实上，早在十九世纪末，二十世纪初，孙中山先生就已经对如何在亚洲大国之一的中国实施符合中国国情的亚洲民主制度作了具体的论述。虽然对孙先生的一些建议本人有一些保留，但大致上我还是认为亚洲国家，包括新加坡，还是可以参考孙先生的论述。
虽然说民主过程很重要，但民主的精神更必须在宪法、执行过程等彻底贯彻。孙中山先生在他的演讲中曾经说得很精确，民主是极端自由无政府主义和极端集权主义之间的平衡。在任何进化先进的社会，极端自由无政府主义是行不通的。但是在认同有必要建立一个治理社会或国家的政府基础上，现代民主主义也意识到一个集权于一身的政府或封建制度多数会产生许多弊端。这也意味着民主主义是建立在“不相信人性”的基础上，因为权力能使人腐败，极端集权更会使人彻底的腐败，而另一个极端的自由也会使广大民众展现人性最丑恶的一面。
这就是为什么孙中山先生的革命，并不象西方革命为“自由”而革命，而是为推翻腐败封制集权，建立另一个符合三民主义、五权分立的宪法政权。五权分立的重要性在于它是一个互相制衡的制度。它防止任何一个人或集团垄断政权而变独裁，也防止任何人或集团借用弹劾权或立法权防止政府正常运作甚至瘫痪整个政府。在整个政治改革运动中，讲求的是保持政权的互相制衡和有效运作。姑且不论孙先生的改革成败，我着重的是他本人以一个亚洲人对政治改革的期望与理念。
孙先生的五权观念是：执行权(Executive,总统和执行政府
，立法权(Legislative,立法院, 司法权(Judiciary, 法院，弹劾权(Power of Impeachment, 监察院，考试权(Power of Examination, 考试院。其实在中国的历史上，这五权概念早已经存在，只不过这五权都集中在于一体，帝皇制度。与西方的三权概念，中国的政治体系其实是更健全的，因为除了三权以外，中国很早就实行弹劾制度和考试(科举制度。这些制度是为了使历代皇朝的皇帝拥有一个制衡文武百官、遴选贤才来治理国家。可惜的是，就因为权限集中，导致贪腐丛生。
问题的根源是人治和法制的矛盾。如果是集权制度，无可避免的是它将沦为腐败的人治。但纯为法治是不可能的，因为这当中总会牵涉到人的因素。所以在整个政治观念中，是如何建立起一个经得起时间考验，防止权力腐蚀人性导致政权腐败，而在此同时又能选贤加入执政团体的制度。
我无法认同的是孙先生的“考试权”观念。在他的论述中提到任何后备立法委员必须拥有被鉴定的资格才可被选为立法委员。这也就是说民众并没有直接普选议员的权力。这也许跟他处于的那个时代有关。在一个(民主民智和民识还未开发的时代里，也许为了防止民众的选举权被不良政客骗取，所以才会立此法。我是赞同公务员必须通过考试制度遴选，但对于在国会的政治代议士，我反而觉得它应该包容越多不同背景的人越能对社会不同阶层有代表性。
我反而认为这“考试权”在现代民主制度可以容入“选举权”。这也就是说“选举权”必须独立分立。 负责选举事务的“选举局”必须独立分立。这才符合“五权分立”，建立互相独立监督牵制的机制。
民主制度并非如林金穆(“民主的过程很重要”，10月11日2007，早报交流站所说的那么简单，“少数服从多数”。民主制度讲求的是民权的代表性，对权力的制衡性和制度的平衡性。如果一个执政党不时运用它对国会的优势而不断修改宪法而使它继续独揽政权，这是不符合民主的理念的。
在现代的新加坡里，我们并没有设立独立的弹劾院，国会也因为各种原因(不只是单纯的反对党不够人选的问题而被行动党垄断而失去真正的制衡功能，而媒体又没法扮演有效的弹劾或监督政府的功能，这种情况对我国长远的发展来说是非常不利的。
在西方的民主论述中，他们意识到“少数服从多数”这理念有它的缺陷。这样的“少数服从多数”的体制会导致“多数对少数的专制”(tyranny of majority rule)。这也就是为何在许多的西方国家里，他们都逐渐的把选举制度改革为比例制。比例制是比较合理的。比方说，在一个集选区里有四成的选民投给了反对党，但是现有的制度却没法给这四成选民的意愿在国会里得到充足的代表。
如果实行比例制的话，在一个有五个议席的集选区，这反对党便可得到两个议席而可以代表那四成的选民。这样的制度就可以防止“多数对少数的专制”，也可以防止任何政党独揽政权而使整个民主制度失效。这也可以扩充民众的政治参与，因为在这种制度下，任何政党都无需填满所有集选区的议席(比如五席集选区可派三个候选人参选，而能在更多的集选区竞选。反对党也无需为了防止三角战而让选民少了政治选择。目前，许多新加坡人都因集选区制度实行的关系，长久以来失去了投票的机会。这对提高国民意识是非常不利的。这是因为失去了选举的机会会逐渐的使民众去政治化，逐渐导致民众对国家大事漠不关心。比例选举制就能纠正这弊端。
终结以上观点，我认为一个健全的民主政治体制必须拥有几个特质：
1.
五权分立，这包括“选举/考试权”，“弹劾/媒体/自由言论权”的分立。
2.
民众全面政治参与和投票权的行使
3.
政权的制衡性
4.
确保制度的平衡性
5.
广大民众的多元代表性
我们必须正视我国政治被长期垄断所可能带来的灾害。一个长期没有被充分制衡的制度是非常不健康的。我认为，我们必须先对民主有所认知，而真正了解现有的政治体系，虽然有选举但实质上，是离真正的民主体制还很远。唯一能防止集权制度腐蚀人性而使政权腐化的途径是建立真正的民主制度。
最为重要的是，我们必须认清，亚洲价值观并非与民主理念有所冲突而断然拒绝实行民主制度。从中国悠久的政治历史可看得出我们东方人也有政治制衡的观念。我们正处在政治改革的尖端，势在必行，因为我们无法估计在后李光耀时代会出现什么样的政治变化。我们必须确保我国的政治发展能平稳延续下去。我本身认为只有设立一个健全真正的民主制度才能确保我国的政治长久的稳定。
吴明盛 -
giving out lucky numbers ar
-
Alamak, must go to the library today to read zhaobao because there are articles on democracy...
-
You could actually read them on the net at www.zaobao.comOriginally posted by googoomuck:Alamak, must go to the library today to read zhaobao because there are articles on democracy...
Goh Meng Seng -
Thank you.Originally posted by goh meng seng:You could actually read them on the net at www.zaobao.com
Goh Meng Seng -
English Translation of the Chinese article:
The spirit of the Democratic System
It is interesting to read about the discussion of “Democracy”in your paper's forum around 10 October, the celebration of the first success of Asian Democratic Revolution in China led by Dr. Sun Yat Sen. Since its during this period of celebration, I will start with Dr. Sun's theory of Democracy, i.e. The three principles of the people and the separation of Five Powers.
First of all, why would we want to talk about “Asian Democracy”? The ruling party PAP has always argued that we cannot just apply Western Democratic system on Asian societies because it is not compatible to Asian values. However, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, Dr. Sun Yat Sen has already provided an intellectual discourse on how to apply Democratic system that is suitable to one of largest Asian country, China. Although I do not agree with some of Dr. Sun's views, but I think Asian countries, including Singapore, could take Dr. Sun's discourse into serious consideration when implementing Democracy.
Although the process of democratic development is important, but we must ensure that the spirit of Democracy must be thoroughly enforce or implemented accordingly in the Constitutions as well as the execution process. Dr. Sun has been right on the spot in saying that Democracy is the balance between extremes, the total freedom Anarchist vs totalitarian rule. In any advanced society, total freedom values, Anarchist, cannot work. However, while we recognize the need of having a governing body in a society, modern Democratic society also recognize the potential ills that could be derived from a concentration of powers. This actually means that Democracy is built upon the “distrust” of human beings. This is because power could corrupt (human minds), absolute power corrupt absolutely but at the other extreme, total freedom would result in the demonstration of worse side of human beings.
This is also basically why Dr. Sun's revolution is unlike Western revolutions, never about “freedom” but about toppling the corrupt feudal system and build a system that is based no Democratic values and the separation of 5 powers. The importance of the separation (or rather, independence) of the 5 powers lies in the mechanism of REAL checks and balances. It prevents any individuals or ruling organization to monopolies power but at the same time, prevent any others to make use of the system's impeachment or legislative powers to prevent the normal functionality of the government. Throughout the whole revolution, it is all about the checks and balances of the powers. I will not comment on the success or failures of Dr. Sun's revolution but concentrate on on his Asian perspective of Democratic reforms.
The concept of Dr. Sun's 5 powers includes: Executive Power, Legislative Power, Judiciary Power, Power of Impeachment, Power of Examination. In fact, in Chinese ancient history, the concept of 5 powers has already existed. However, these 5 powers were concentrated under the courts of the Emperors. In comparison to the Western concept of 3 powers, the Chinese political administration is actually more advanced. This is because, other than the 3 powers, the Chinese have included another two important aspects of governance, the Imperial system of impeachment which acted as an internal checking mechanism, as well as the Examination system that aimed at selecting best talents to become court officials. These systems were set up to help the Emperor to implement a ruling system that would provide checks and balances within as well as selecting the best talents to help him rule the empire. Unfortunately, due to the nature of concentration of power, it normally led to problems of corruptions.
The fundamental problem lies with the rule of law/system vs human. If it is an totalitarian system, it will inevitably end up with the corruption under human rule. But it is not possible for the whole political system to base on books or rules only basically because it will inevitably involves human elements. Thus, the whole political views is focused on how to build a balanced system that would minimize corruption and at the same time, a selection process that would get the best people to join the government.
However, I cannot agree with Dr. Sun's concept of “Examination Power”. In his theory, all candidates for legislative representatives must go through a system of examination. This would mean that technically, the people do not have direct universal suffrage right on their political representatives. (Most likely it will end up with a total elitist system.) Dr. Sun might have advocated this rule basically because political awakening or awareness among the Chinese population may be lacking and this would prevent unscrupulous politicians from cheating votes. I do agree that all civil servants must go through a system of examination as a selection process to get good people to work in the government. But for representatives of people, I would prefer a more diverse representation from diverse background (instead of an elitist one).
I would say that this “Examination Power” should be a concept of “selection process” which would include “Power of Election”in the context of modern Democratic system. This would mean that the “Power of Election” must be separated and independently administered. i.e. The Election Department must be Independent.
Democracy is not what Mr. Lim's (a writer to ZaoBao on 11 October) deems to be, “majority rule”. Democracy emphasizes on people's power being adequately represented, powers of the system must be checked and the system must be balanced. If a ruling party systematically and relentlessly uses its monopoly of the parliament to amend the Constitution in a bid to ensure its entrenchment and continuous monopoly of power, then this isn't a compliant to Democratic principles.
In modern Singapore, we do not have any independent organization that is entrusted with the power of impeachment. Due to various reasons (not merely opposition parties do not have enough candidates) Parliament is monopolized by PAP and lost its function as a check on the government. On the other hand, the media could not perform effective checks on the government as well. Under all such circumstances, it is really undesirable for our long term development as a Nation.
In Western Democratic discourses, they have realized that there are weaknesses in “majority rule”. Such system of “majority rule” would end up with “tyranny of majority rule”. This is basically why in recent democratic development history in Western worlds, they have slowly shifted towards proportionate representation. Proportionate representation is relatively more rational. For example, if a GRC has 40% of voters that voted the opposition, the present system would not be able to give these voters an adequate voice or representation in parliament.
In Western Democratic discourses, they have realized that there are weaknesses in “majority rule”. Such system of “majority rule” would end up with “tyranny of majority rule”. This is basically why in recent democratic development history in Western worlds, they have slowly shifted towards proportionate representation. Proportionate representation is relatively more rational. For example, if a GRC has 40% of voters that voted the opposition, the present system would not be able to give these voters an adequate voice or representation in parliament.
In conclusion, I would illustrate the following criteria for a mature democratic system to evolve:
1) Separation of 5 powers which includes power of elections/examination and impeachment/ media/ freedom of expression.
2)A complete political participation of citizens and the exercise of their voting rights.
3)The checks on the powers
4)The balance maintained in the system
5)The diverse representation of people.
We must seriously examine the potential harm that a prolonged monopoly of power could bring to our nation. It is very unhealthy to have a system that lacks real checks and balance for a long period of time. I believe we should first understand Democracy and come to the simple conclusion that we have now is far from being democratic even though it has elections. The only way to prevent concentration of power of corrupting the human minds and leads to the corruption of the government is to set up a truly democratic system.
Most important of all, we must see clearly that there are no contradictions or incompatibility between Asian values and Democratic principles. This should not be the reason to reject the implementation of democratic system. From Chinese ancient history, we could observe clearly that for Asians, we also have a concept of checks and balances in maintaining our political system. We are at a cross road of political development in Singapore and it is an urgent matter for us to reform our political system now. This is because we cannot anticipate how the present political system will evolve in the post-LKY era. We must ensure that Singapore's political system must develop and extend in a stable manner. I personally feel that only via building a real mature democratic system would guarantee long term political stability for Singapore.
Goh Meng Seng -
Mr Goh,
Would u give a short summary of your main points in your article? -
Finally, a rational point of view.
This is perhaps one of the greatest flaw of CSJ's struggle till now. He fails to understand that the causes of 'fighting for rights' or 'fighting for freedom' is still a fundamentally Western idea.
Singaporeans are still uncomfortable with the notion of fighting for liberty/freedom because they tend to associate it with anarchy or Western values (undoubtedly helped along by our closed media). Yet, talk about judicial independence, an independent body to check the powers of the rulers, it resonates with them. Just look at the grouses people have for the supposedly independent Public Transport Council.
Sorry, I do not support CSJ's struggle. IMO, he is fighting for the wrong thing using the wrong method. Two wrongs do not make a right. What Sun Yat-Sen proposed is a much more rational and easily achievable one.
Just my $0.02, without GST. -
I think it is an interesting article
However wat happen if there is a different view between the 2 sectors, namely Judiciary Power and the Power of Impeachment ? The judiaciary power claim tat the top person of the impeachment branch to be guilty while the power of impeachment claims the top person of the judiciary branch to be guilty ? Actually, I prefer the power of impeachment and judiciary to be the same unit, which is wat western the democracy judiciary branch is about. Tat is, if i am not wrong, the impeachment unit is already present and is part of the now judiciary unit. They follow the law and act on it
Furthermore, the power of election is already an independent branch from the 3 powers itself (if i am not wrong).
In tat case the western democracy become the same as the proposed democracy. -
havent seen your posts in a while.
-
another flaw of CSJ's "struggle" is that his "fight" has been soundly rejected by Singaporeans.. and he goes on with his sanctimonious way trying to shove it down our throats..
now.. democracy?
hmmm.. a sound rejection of him in the polls isn't democratic enough?Originally posted by teraexa:Finally, a rational point of view.
This is perhaps one of the greatest flaw of CSJ's struggle till now. He fails to understand that the causes of 'fighting for rights' or 'fighting for freedom' is still a fundamentally Western idea.
Singaporeans are still uncomfortable with the notion of fighting for liberty/freedom because they tend to associate it with anarchy or Western values (undoubtedly helped along by our closed media). Yet, talk about judicial independence, an independent body to check the powers of the rulers, it resonates with them. Just look at the grouses people have for the supposedly independent Public Transport Council.
Sorry, I do not support CSJ's struggle. IMO, he is fighting for the wrong thing using the wrong method. Two wrongs do not make a right. What Sun Yat-Sen proposed is a much more rational and easily achievable one.
Just my $0.02, without GST. -
Actually the whole article is very simple:Originally posted by PRP:Mr Goh,
Would u give a short summary of your main points in your article?
1) The importance of separation of powers, whether it is three or five powers
2) In Asian context, we yearn for a government that could everything but yet being checked. Thus we have five powers concept instead of three. The two additions are Examination power for civil service plus the power of impeachment that could be used against errant officials.
3) Such concepts have been installed in previous Chinese dynasties but not the powers are not separated. Dr. Sun has come up with this unique concept that is suitable for Asian democracy, the separation of 5 powers instead of 3.
4) In Singapore, PAP keeps saying we are Asian country thus Western democracy does not apply here. This is a flawed opinion as 100 years ago, Dr. Sun has already dealt with the concept of Asian democracy already.
5) In fact, in Dr. Sun's revolution, it is not about freedom but about destroying the corrupted Qing administration and build up the ideal political system which is based on the separation of 5 powers.
5) Are our present system democratic? There are no separation of powers and it definitely does not have adequate checks and balances within the system. This is in fact, against Asian values.
6) What I do not agree with Dr. Sun's principles is the examination power which inherently means that we will not be able to directly vote for our legislative representatives.
7) I would urge a political reform working towards the separation of powers couple with a proportionately representation system.
That's about all.
Goh Meng Seng
I would urge a political reform which will include a proper