Bioluminescence of Freedom and Democracy in Asia and Europe through the Lenses of Behavioural Science and Policy
Bioluminescence of Freedom and Democracy in Asia and Europe through the Lenses of Behavioural Science and Policy
escrito por Dini Harmita
Abstract
This paper is aimed at summarising the behavioural sciences and policies related to freedom and democracy in Asia and Europe. One of the missing linkages that moderates related courses and discourses is behavioural routinisation. This explains what we eat and read today shapes our future. In freedom and democracy it is crucial in the sense of cognitive, affective, and psychomotoric stability of related institutions is represented through the behavioural routinisation. One of the essential institutions in representative democracy that is primarily characterised with the electoral system is political parties. In deliberative democracy policy is the key difference. The ability of governing political parties to interpret sciences and their promises into policy is going to be analysed in this essay. Europe and Asia have certain distinctive differences and similarities to learn thus this essay takes both cases briefly yet collectively, comprehensively, and comparatively at the same time. The methodology of this research is purely literature review.
Key words: Freedom, Democracy, Asia, Europe, Behavioural Science, Policy
The Bioluminescence
No one trusts political parties. Neither do I. Thus as the author I am intrigued to learn it deeper through the behavioural routinisation as part of Party Institutionalisation (PI) and Party System Institutionalisation (PSI).
Sociologically, DiTomaso and Parks-Yasin (2014) studied routinisation in inequalities between workers as part of organisational dynamics. Institutionally political science seeks the role of behavioural routinisation as part of the party stability in both PI and PSI (Harmita 2022, Casal Bértoa, Enyedi, and Mölder, 2023).
The main reason why it has been difficult for us to trust political parties is because of the tendency of misusing funds. Especially traditional political parties such as Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan who hold seniority and loyalty values a little bit too much. They might not have any scandals related to corruption, collusion, cartelisation, and nepotism but they will do anything to cover their mistakes. It becomes rooted in almost all political parties including in Asia and Europe. Using both eyes of behavioural science and policy, this essay is aimed at understanding such behavioural routinisation in freedom and democracy.
Freedom tends to be analysed using psychological sciences while democracy with political sciences. Both are part of social sciences. Naturally the shadows brought by both courses and discourses tend to be like bioluminescence. Like current conditions, because of the blocked lights everyone seems to be misunderstood a bit more about what is happening in the universes of freedom and democracy.
Psychologically, none of us wants to be blamed. Thus Russians blamed Ukraine, Israelis blamed Palestinians, Bangladeshi blamed their leader, and vice versa.
Institutionally, it is interesting to see how sciences perceive such phenomena and to understand how the policies reflect that. First concept we could revisit to comprehend is self defense. Stahl and Popp-Madsen (2022) argued that militant democracy tends to be seen as the form of democratic self-defense nonetheless it tends to still restrict political participation.
Reflecting on The United States policy concerning self defense Ward (2015) mentioned that we have options of standing our ground or retreating when attacked. Nonetheless the current main problem is in defining the word ‘retreat’. Linguistically, it doesn’t mean losing. It means taking a rest, like Sabbath for the Jews, weekly or monthly retreat for the Christians, and tu’maninah in Muslim five times prayers. When we are tired we are suggested to rest, not to quit.
The question is do those entities related to the competitions and collaborations in democracy have such behavioural routinisation? Do they have freedom to acquire such rights or obligations as part of the rule of law formulation and implementation? This essay is not going to answer the questions. Nevertheless, the author will be content if those who read will be inspired to do further research.
The Governing
This chapter is specially dedicated to understanding lessons learned derived from the governing parties in Asia and Europe in translating their promises and sciences into policy formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
Adapting the Westminster policy, most of the countries in Asia and Europe elect their leaders to govern at least 4-5 years with adjustments. For example, several countries restrict the leaders to only lead two periods maximum such as Indonesia and several others don’t have such restrictions such as Russia.
Following China, Russia tends to be a peculiar case because most of their policies are meant only to be written and enacted, not implemented. In the written policies they could say they do not like wars yet they aggressively attack the innocents for example. This is the result of behavioural routinisation in militant democracy as part of authoritarianism and populism. The bioluminescence is too bright because of money, women, and cyberattacks thus sometimes not even the holiest children in the universes could escape their strategy in weakening freedom and democracy.
Curato and Fossati (2020) discussed innovations as one of the key differences in the behavioural routinisation within authoritarianism, populism, and democracy. They mentioned that usually and logically authoritarianism doesn’t innovate. Nonetheless, the facts say most of the innovations come from the oligarchs who are in favour of both authoritarianism and populism.
The Oligarchs
Status quo is inevitable especially for the rich. Only prophets and a few of us who want to keep a modest life. Thus to expect them to change is even much more difficult than to talk to the moon. Therefore, to link them with those who are in need and reduce the gaps or polarisation are the leasts scientists, experts, and the governments can do.
Nevertheless, the reality most of the time says no. The rich want to keep their status quo thus they bribe everyone not to be in their ways. Kosová (2022) analysed the oligarchy behavioural routinisation in Bulgaria as fraudulent behaviour where corruption is only one of their tools. They formed and created other supporting groups including insurance companies to benefit them more. Reflecting on Soeharto, Fukuoka (2013)even called the oligarchs' behaviour in Indonesia as vulgar behaviour. Their freedom in funding and governing the countries is not balanced with the people's freedom as the righteous entities to enjoy the results of their hard work.
Purdey (2016) explained it thoroughly by describing how the oligarchs’ behaviour shapes the dynasty families and eventually the related systems in Southeast Asia. The leaders who are backed by the oligarchs or the oligarchs themselves tend to like the status quo and thus form dynasty families.
With such routinisation, it is difficult to escape the changes to be less polarised. Nevertheless it is not our work alone. In fact, a true scientist and expert should seek refuge in the process of the rich and the poor understanding their own needs. For them to understand that they could complete each other by themselves is a great success for us. For the rich to be humble about their wealth and for the poor to be confident about their life is one of our contentments and great achievements.
Conclusion: The Sciences and Policies
Europeans and Asians have similarities in terms of being humans. We are all angry, disappointed, happy, sad, and feeling many other emotions with the similar reasonings. Our main differences lies in the behavioural routinisation including as tiny and simple as what we eat.
In freedom and democracy, Europeans have long histories in understanding many dimensions of both. Asians have less nonetheless are willing to learn both from sciences and policies.
Whatever the term, this essay suggests one more time how sciences and policies can be useful for each other and wider universes. In freedom and democracy, cognitive aspect is not only about knowing the candidates to vote in representative democracy. The affective part is not merely about freedom of liking or disliking one policy in deliberative democracy. The psychomotoric part is not all the time about freedom to move and act as part of participation but also listening in participatory democracy. That’s how the routinisation plays the role in shaping our behaviour. That’s how sciences should beautifully interact with practices represented in policies; to be useful a bit more.
