Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Democracy Creates Stability In A Society. So how? Agree or disagree? Say it now or never

Democracy is a form of Government in which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. A society is a group of organised group of individuals associated together and living as members of a community. Stability in a society refers to the firmness of the society, whether it can keep up with demands of the advancing world both in terms of economic or military power or whether it can maintain peace and order within it for the citizens it holds.

In this form of Government, the race, language or religion of the citizen does not matter as everyone would be counted equally and no one has more say than the other. Democracy is the preferred model of Government in many developed countries, but it is always good?

Democracy could possibly lead to emergence of groups seeking to have the government favour them, at the necessary expense of another. This would create tension in the society and there would be fights breaking out in the society eventually.

So, back to the main question:
Does democracy create stability in a society?

I dunno.

So let's discuss.

7 comments:

czxcjx said...

In my opinion, while democracy has its merits, it will not guarantee stability in a society.

While democracy may mean that "everyone would be counted equally", you cannot deny that if a certain group is overrepresented within the population, the choices made by the democratic process may be skewed. For example, the Malays are a majority in Malaysia. Thus, any elections or other such votes have a higher chance of benefiting Malays if people think along racial lines. This same problem can arise in any other country with one group being the majority in the population and can lead to the minority groups feeling oppressed, thus undermining the stability of a country.

Of course, there are also many scenarios where democracy contributes greatly to stability in a society, but I feel that there is no guarantee. What are your views on this?

Khai said...

Yes, it is true that in a democratic society, a certain group is overrepresented within the population. However, wouldn't the minority groups have other alternatives available in the democratic society to change the indesirable situation other than violence? They could sign petitions instead of resorting to other methods which may affect the stability of the society.

Moreover, what i think is more important is the good of the majority rather than the minority in a society(even though the minority should not be ignored!). By using democracy as a political system, the majority will benefit more than the minority and this is important because what democracy has done (which other forms of political system sometimes fail to accomplish eg. monarchy, autocracy etc.)is that it has managed to run the country in the best interests of the majority and in this way, most of the citizens are happy and the society can progress towards "greater heights" with stability.

Of course, we have not discussed this based on the two types of democracy which are the representative democracy and the direct democracy.

Direct democracy is where members of a society are given the right to vote and decide on every law or bill passed. This is a direct way for the citizens to express their opinions and make changes to the society, and this way is also an accurate decision-making process. Switzerland applies this system and the country has one of the more friendly and honest populations of people in Europe.

Representative democracy is where the views of the people are represented by representatives elected by the people. This method saves the country more time and money and it is an effective system in the sense that it is a quicker way than direct democracy, although direct democracy makes the decision-making process for the country more accurate. Superpowers like British and America use this system and their overall growth may be credited to these smooth system of democracy.

So is there a difference between the types of democracy? Does both types of democracy create stability in a society?

avversa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
avversa said...

This is stupid I have to retype about 300 words.. Stupid blog.. And I'm overseas. Why'd the school choose to do this kind of thing.. And on blogger. So reliable..

Khairi:
So is there a difference between the types of democracy? Does both types of democracy create stability in a society?

Me:
The thing about democracy being able to create stability through both direct and representative democracy is valid, but democracy doesn't really reflect the thoughts and decisions of the minority.

So long as a voting system is used, the minority will always be pushed to one side. Also, when the minority is constantly being crushed by the majority, uninvited reactions can follow, and thus instability. Democracy should address the minority's views.

However, in democracy people are given alternatives to the current situation, through which they decide through voting. This could present changes to governments, the people and their representatives, and in the case of direct democracy petitions may be used.

By constantly providing alternatives, people can resort to voting instead of other methods, violent ones most notably.

czxcjx said...

Besides the clear disadvantage of democracy when there is a majority/minority issue, perhaps we should also discuss other advantages or disadvantages of democracy that can lead to stability or instability within a society?

For example, the level of education of the population has a great role to play in determining whether democracy can create stability or not. If the population is largely uneducated or generally less educated, they may not fully understand the implications of what they are voting for. Thus, they may vote for options that they think bring benefit to themselves, but in actuality have a detrimental effect on the society at large. This problem is most apparent in direct democracy, though representative democracy lessens the impact that a less educated population may have.

Another factor that may come into consideration, especially for representative democracy, is that the leaders selected through the democratic process may just be charismatic but only adept at making false promises. This can mean that they take advantage of their term to do nothing but selfishly loot the society's wealth for themselves. This can also bring instability to a country.

Perhaps you could suggest more points that show democracy's benefits or problems when bringing stability to a country?

Khai said...

Kenneth, the point about democracy being able to create stability through both direct and representative democracy is correct, but it takes a long time for a direct democracy country to achieve stability. The people have to come into consensus for stability to be achieved and this common mindset can only achieved through time.

Zhan Xiong for you only:

The ideology which democracy follows is the believe of freedom of the individual living in the country or liberalism. With freedom of choice, individuals in the society live equally and fairly, thus no violence or protests will occur.

But the question is whether freedom for the people is good for the society or not. Freedom allows individuals to do what they want however they want it. They would not be oppressed or forced to do what they do not want.

BUT, too much freedom could lead to conflict. Complete freedom of speech could lead to racist comments made by people about other races whether intentionally or not. Conflicts amongst races would then occur, and the stability of the society would be affected.

Any comments?

avversa said...

Yes, thank you Khairi for your point there.

As for your question,
I believe that while it is true democracy takes the majority's wishes into consideration, it does raise some questions as to whether what the majority wants is actually correct.

And, if it isn't correct, since the country is a democracy, the ruling government can do nothing to stop the decision of the people, yes? Then surely instability would follow. Therefore, too much freedom will cause instability.

Stability refers to the social and economic peace that a utopia country would have. Examples include a lack of political riots etc.

Anyway, let us look at another aspect of democracy, the multi-party system. The multi-party system should be present in a democracy so there is opposition, which would ensure the ruling party makes efforts to improve and that there is a choice for voters.