Before we start, let me first give a bit of background information and definitions on Democracy.
Firstly, the word 'Democracy' means 2 things: A political philosophy, or a number of related form of government. Both of these things encompass two main ideas:
1) All members of the society have equal access to power 2) All members of the society enjoy universally recognized freedom and liberties, such as the freedom of speech, equal rights, etc
Both of these are achieved via the election process, which is a main feature of democracy. Anyone, as long as they fulfill a few conditions, can contest for a position of power. This requires the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and a certain degree of rule of law, which is what we want in a democracy, as seen in #2.
Elections are also based on a major principle of democracy: the 'Majority Rule'. In an election, people can choose to vote to exercise their power in the affairs of the state. However, due to the Majority Rule, the majority wins, and decisions which are supported by the majority are the ones that are made.
There is a failing of the Majority Rule, though, in what is termed as 'the tyranny of the majority'. What this means is that the minority is not represented in the decision making process. However, this only happens in Direct Democracy, and rarely happens in Representative Democracy.
Talking about Direct/Representative Democracy, let me first define them for the discussion later.
Direct Democracy is a political system whereby the members of the state participate directly in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives in Representative Democracy.
Representative Democracy has two main types: Parliamentarism and Presidentialism. There are many differing intermediates in between them, though, but in Representative Democracy, there are two main branches of government - the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (called the Legislature). The Executive branch of the government focuses on the day-to-day governing of the state, while the Legislature is mostly just responsible for the approval of laws of the state. Both branches consist of representatives of the citizens of the state, but the leaders of the state, such as the Head of State and the Head of Government, reside in the Executive branch of the government.
Now, let us talk about Parliamentarism and Presidentialism. In Presidentialism, the Executive branch of the government and the Legislature are nearly totally seperate. What this means is that each branch of government is not accountable to the other, nor can one branch dismiss the other in normal circumstances. This allows for each branch to check on each other, making sure that the other branch does not fall out of line. This is in stark contrast to Parliamentarism, where the Executive branch of the government is directly or indirectly dependent on the Legislative branch. This then leads to a differing set of checks and balances than Presidentialism. In Presidentialism, both the Head of State and the Head of Government are held by the President, while in Parliamentarism, the Head of State and the Head of Government are held by different persons, with the Head of State (the President) normally being a figurehead, while the Head of Government (Prime Minister) having more power.
(The above is mostly obtained from Wikipedia.)
Let us discuss in a systematic manner, so can we first discuss on whether/how Democracy creates Economic stability in a society?
Economic stability in society basically refers to the stability of consumer items such as food, and sources of investments such as the stock markets. These can be affected by inflation, so therefore if a society is to have a stable society, inflations and fluctuations in the economy must be reduced as little as possible.
When political stability is achieved through democracy, the government gains trust of their people. In democracy, there would be minimal changes in the economic policies and the constant presence of one dominant party/coalition would mean that the government has a constant stand on its economic policies, so investors will feel safe to invest in the nation’s economy.
With a constant flow of investors, the country would most likely be able to experience a flourishing economy.
I agree with Yong Ngee's point to a certain extent.
As Yong Ngee said, a stable economy is to a large extent dependant on the economic policies of the state/nation. If the economic policies are ever-changing, investors will not feel very secure in investing in that nation's economy, thus the economy of the nation would not do very well.
However, I do not agree to a certain extent that political stability causes the people to trust the government. I believe that it is the other way round, in that the trust of the people in the government causes stability, as the members of the government would be re-elected if the people feel that they are doing a good job.
Now, let us come back to the point about Democracy causing economical stability. Even though the continual presence of a dominant party/coalition in the government would allow the economic policies of the nation to not undergo drastic changes after each election, the continual presence of the party/coalition is still dependant on the will of the people, since in a democracy, the power resides in the people. Thus, if the people are continually unhappy with the government, there may well be different ruling parties in each term of office, each with different takes on the economic policies. Drastic changes in economic policies may still occur, and this will cause economic instability.
So does that mean that Democracy doesn't always create stability in a society? I do believe so.
Just another point to add on to how democracy contributes to economic stability. One important factor in economic stability is the diversity of the different types of trade available. Thus, having more kinds of trade in more areas definitely leads to more economic stability. Being democratic, the country's economic policies would usually be largely affected by the people, who would also very likely be influenced by the outside world. Local businessmen and investors would be especially much affected by the foreign economy, and since the decisions that the government would make would be in line with that of the people's, the government would very likely promote many different kinds of trade and welcome foreign trade. This could diversify trade in the country, making its economy less susceptible to economic downturns as a single economic crash in one field would not affect those in other fields, and allow the economy of the country to sustain its stability and have time to recover.
Firstly, just an errata to my previous post. Regarding the last paragraph of the said post, I meant ‘economic stability’, not just stability in general. Apologies for the error.
Next, I believe we can move on, since I believe no one else has any more points on economic stability. Shao Wei seems to be overseas, so he’ll have to add on once he returns. We’ll go on without him first. Well then, let us discuss on whether/how Democracy creates Social stability in a society. I shall start first.
Social stability basically refers to the stability of the society, such as the mindset of the people. If a society is stable socially, there would be no riots, and the people would generally be happy with the government enough to not cause any social unrest. Thus, a society can only be stable if the people in the society are content with the government.
I believe that Democracy creates social stability in a society, due to an important aspect of the political system – The idea of the Majority Rule. Since the government is directly or indirectly chosen by the people, the government itself must have a lot of support from the people, or they would not have been elected into office. Thus, the people should generally be supportive of/content with the government.
Also, the ruling party in the government would also try not to anger/antagonize the citizens of their nation, especially during their decision-making, as if so, the ruling party may not get reelected into office in the next election. This is due to the fact that in a democratic state, the citizens of the nation are the ones with the power to determine who forms the government, directly or indirectly. Thus, the government would aim to forge better state-citizen relations, and generally try to make their citizens happy. This will cause social stability, as the people will be content with the government.
However, there is still the inherent problem of the Majority Rule, which is that the minority is ignored. However, I do believe that the government will still try to have the minority be content as well, but it is also unrealistic to come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.
Just to add on, social stability is easier to achieve with democracy because it focuses more on voting for a political ideology, rather than for a particular person. Also, a direct mandate makes the President more accountable to the people. As a result, decisions made would be in the best interests of people, thereby leading to social stability.
Democracies would generally be more socially stable in terms of the number of people that one can please, especially direct democracy, in which people get to vote directly on specific policies. However, this will mean that it only appeals to the majority, and the minority will be ignored. Also, bills will only be passed if the majority agree on them, and not dependent on whether it is the best for the country. In Representative Democracy, if the general population agrees with the ways of the leaders, it does not matter whether the people have a say in it, but the society can still be stable.
One problem of democrary is that we are unsure of whether the majority is truly suitale to make decisions. In a largely uneducated population for example, we can be quite sure that the decisions made by the people are not good ones. the supposedly good decisions made by the minority would be overwhelmed by the majority.
However, it is not true to say that this is always a bad thing. When the decisions are made by the majority, it would mean that the government has the support of the majority. This would mean that the people would be more cooperative of the government and that the government will face less opposition.
Regarding Douglas’ point, even though the decision made may not exactly be the correct one, as long as the majority of the people in the nation support it, it will create social stability, which is the point of our discussion.
Does anyone else have any other points to add about democracy creating social stability? If not, let us move on to how democracy creates Political stability in a society.
Political stability basically refers to the stability of a nation’s politics. If a nation is politically stable, the government itself would also be stable, and there would not be much trouble that was caused by politics, such as political rallies against the government, or political revolutions such as overthrowing of the government.
Since democracy comes in many differing forms, and each have their own advantages and disadvantages when it comes to political stability, let us focus on the few forms that were defined at the start of the discussion. To recap, the forms of democracy defined are Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy, with Representative Democracy including Presidentialism and Parliamentarism.
I shall first start on Presidentialism. As defined at the start of the discussion, there are two main branches of government in Presidentialism, the Executive and Legislative branches. Each are separate from each other, with the Executive branch headed by the President. Members of the Executive branch, which is the branch that governs the day-to-day affairs of the state, are nominated by the President, yet they have to gain the approval of the Legislate, which are made up of nominated representatives from different areas. Day-to-day affairs are not under the purview of the Legislate, as they only propose Bills and vote on them internally. The Bills, however, does affect the governing of the nation, so the Legislate does have influence in the governing of the nation. Members of both branches have fixed term of offices, although they could differ, as the term of office for the members of the Executive branch normally coincide with the term of office of the President. Talking about the President, his term of office is fixed, and unlike Parliamentarism, it is more difficult to bring down the President except when the President breaks the law, which would then result in his/her impeachment.
Now, talking about how Presidentialism creates political stability. Firstly, unlike Parlimentarism, in Presidentialism, the two branches of the government are separated, and this separation of powers allow each branch of government to serve as checks and balances for the other, thus making sure that each branch of government does not go too far out of line. As each branch would limit the other, there will be little fluctuations in the political situation, thus resulting in political stability. However, if both branches are in direct conflict with the other, it will result in a deadlock, but these situations are quite rare.
Secondly, the centralization of the decision making power to the President allows for speed and decisiveness in the decision making process. Compared to Parliamentarism, in Presidentialism, less power is given to the individual parties forming the government, meaning that the President is able to make decisions without being overly constrained by the Legislate, although the Legislate can override the President’s decision with a supermajority. Thus, the government will be able to respond quickly during times of emergency, instead of arguing and doing nothing. With a clear decision maker, there will be more political stability, without it, there will be internal conflict in the government, resulting in a weakened government, which is politically instable.
Lastly, a fixed term of office, especially for the President, will discourage the President from holding elections at the most opportune time for him/her, resulting in the President having a higher chance of being reelected. Also, with a fixed term of office, the political climate will be stable, as it will be extremely difficult too boot out the President prematurely due to political manipulations. If the government keeps changing, the nation will not be politically stable, as the government’s stand on issues will be ever changing. However, a fixed term of office would impede leadership change, as it is hard to remove an incumbent President from office early, even with impeachment. But then, at least there would still be a measure of political stability.
Political stability would depend a lot on the the situation which the majority of the population is in, for instance, standard of living, education, opinions, etc. This is because all these factors would determine teh type of decisions that the people would make. for instance, if the large part of the population is highly educated, then the decisions that they make would probably be a good one. However, if the majority of the population in the society is uneducated, or is naware of what is good fo the country, then democracy would definitely be unable to create political stability.
In democracy, the largest assumption is that the majority is always right, which may not always be the case. one reason how stability can be achieved is when the people are happy with the government as it was thirchoice. however, the minority is left out of the decision. Yes, it ma be said that the minority are allowed to vote and exercise their rights, but once they're decisions are overpowered, it would just mean that whatever opinions they have would not affect the policies and the choice of government.
I agree with douglas' point. It is the same assumption that we had made while exercising democracy - if the people are unable to comprehend the use and what democracy is, the ideology would fail. Because the government is elected by the people, the people the type of pmust be able to discern for themselves their own needs and wants. As such, they would be able to elect a person who shares the same thoughts and opinions to represent themselves. However, democracy might not always result in political stability. For example, the minority groups' interests would be ignored. This might lead to them revolting and protesting against the government. There is also a possibility that they might influence others, and thus cause chaos and disruption to a country. In conclusion, democracy is not a fit-all solution. The main thing about this political system is to reduce the protests from the minority by compromising as much as possible. Only then will democracy really result in a politically stable society.
Well, it seems like we’ve decided not to discuss in too great detail, so I’ll refocus on general democracy rather than the various democratic systems when talking about political stability.
I agree with Douglas’ and Yong Ngee’s point, in that political stability would depend highly on the character and the type of person that gets elected by the people into the government. If incumbent politicians are elected into the government, or the politicians cannot agree with each other on issues, especially important ones, political deadlock, and very likely political instability will ensue. All this, though, as mentioned before, depends on the voters.
This fundamental assumption of democracy, which is that the majority is always right, may not be the best one, but this assumption is crucial for evaluating whether democracy creates stability in a country. Due to this assumption, the power to decide whether a country is be stable or not is given to the people to decide. The people are the defining trait in how effective democracy can create stability in a society.
But the main question has not been answered: Does democracy create stability in a society? I believe it does, to a certain extent. There are two main factors influencing the decisions of the voters, which in turn may affect the stability of the society:
1. The environment, or the conditions in the society. For instance, the educational level of the voters, the general standard of living, the different options that the voters have, etc. All this will affect a voter’s decision, and by extension, affecting who makes up the government.
If a society is made up of highly educated voters, educated choices will be made, such as during the evaluation of the differing political ideologies and the candidates for election. Educated people would pay close attention to the ideologies, as they would think of the larger picture, while uneducated people will likely focus more on the candidate himself. Focusing only on the candidate is a bad thing, as he could be popular but incumbent.
The standard of living also has an impact on voting decisions, as people will vote more for the candidate who promises to improve on their standard of living. This also extends to other factors, such as economical and social. If a society is lacking in something, the society will be more inclined to elect someone who is likely to resolve that problem.
2. Consistency of opinions/beliefs in the society. Even if the voters are highly educated, if there are split opinions amongst the people, the resultant government would likely compose of people with many widely differing viewpoints, intentions and ideals. With so much dissent in the government, it would be difficult to maintain any sort of stability in the country. Thus, there must be a clear majority opinion on an issue, especially when electing a person, or else there would be instability.
In conclusion, I believe that democracy can create stability in a society to a certain extent, because the effectiveness of democracy would have to depend on the society itself, or more specifically, the two factors stated above. Only if there is an ideal environment, and there is consistency in the opinions of the voters can stability be achieved in a democratic society.
16 comments:
Before we start, let me first give a bit of background information and definitions on Democracy.
Firstly, the word 'Democracy' means 2 things: A political philosophy, or a number of related form of government. Both of these things encompass two main ideas:
1) All members of the society have equal access to power
2) All members of the society enjoy universally recognized freedom and liberties, such as the freedom of speech, equal rights, etc
Both of these are achieved via the election process, which is a main feature of democracy. Anyone, as long as they fulfill a few conditions, can contest for a position of power. This requires the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and a certain degree of rule of law, which is what we want in a democracy, as seen in #2.
Elections are also based on a major principle of democracy: the 'Majority Rule'. In an election, people can choose to vote to exercise their power in the affairs of the state. However, due to the Majority Rule, the majority wins, and decisions which are supported by the majority are the ones that are made.
There is a failing of the Majority Rule, though, in what is termed as 'the tyranny of the majority'. What this means is that the minority is not represented in the decision making process. However, this only happens in Direct Democracy, and rarely happens in Representative Democracy.
Talking about Direct/Representative Democracy, let me first define them for the discussion later.
Direct Democracy is a political system whereby the members of the state participate directly in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives in Representative Democracy.
Representative Democracy has two main types: Parliamentarism and Presidentialism. There are many differing intermediates in between them, though, but in Representative Democracy, there are two main branches of government - the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (called the Legislature). The Executive branch of the government focuses on the day-to-day governing of the state, while the Legislature is mostly just responsible for the approval of laws of the state. Both branches consist of representatives of the citizens of the state, but the leaders of the state, such as the Head of State and the Head of Government, reside in the Executive branch of the government.
Now, let us talk about Parliamentarism and Presidentialism. In Presidentialism, the Executive branch of the government and the Legislature are nearly totally seperate. What this means is that each branch of government is not accountable to the other, nor can one branch dismiss the other in normal circumstances. This allows for each branch to check on each other, making sure that the other branch does not fall out of line. This is in stark contrast to Parliamentarism, where the Executive branch of the government is directly or indirectly dependent on the Legislative branch. This then leads to a differing set of checks and balances than Presidentialism. In Presidentialism, both the Head of State and the Head of Government are held by the President, while in Parliamentarism, the Head of State and the Head of Government are held by different persons, with the Head of State (the President) normally being a figurehead, while the Head of Government (Prime Minister) having more power.
(The above is mostly obtained from Wikipedia.)
Let us discuss in a systematic manner, so can we first discuss on whether/how Democracy creates Economic stability in a society?
Economic stability in society basically refers to the stability of consumer items such as food, and sources of investments such as the stock markets. These can be affected by inflation, so therefore if a society is to have a stable society, inflations and fluctuations in the economy must be reduced as little as possible.
When political stability is achieved through democracy, the government gains trust of their people. In democracy, there would be minimal changes in the economic policies and the constant presence of one dominant party/coalition would mean that the government has a constant stand on its economic policies, so investors will feel safe to invest in the nation’s economy.
With a constant flow of investors, the country would most likely be able to experience a flourishing economy.
I agree with Yong Ngee's point to a certain extent.
As Yong Ngee said, a stable economy is to a large extent dependant on the economic policies of the state/nation. If the economic policies are ever-changing, investors will not feel very secure in investing in that nation's economy, thus the economy of the nation would not do very well.
However, I do not agree to a certain extent that political stability causes the people to trust the government. I believe that it is the other way round, in that the trust of the people in the government causes stability, as the members of the government would be re-elected if the people feel that they are doing a good job.
Now, let us come back to the point about Democracy causing economical stability. Even though the continual presence of a dominant party/coalition in the government would allow the economic policies of the nation to not undergo drastic changes after each election, the continual presence of the party/coalition is still dependant on the will of the people, since in a democracy, the power resides in the people. Thus, if the people are continually unhappy with the government, there may well be different ruling parties in each term of office, each with different takes on the economic policies. Drastic changes in economic policies may still occur, and this will cause economic instability.
So does that mean that Democracy doesn't always create stability in a society? I do believe so.
Just another point to add on to how democracy contributes to economic stability. One important factor in economic stability is the diversity of the different types of trade available. Thus, having more kinds of trade in more areas definitely leads to more economic stability. Being democratic, the country's economic policies would usually be largely affected by the people, who would also very likely be influenced by the outside world. Local businessmen and investors would be especially much affected by the foreign economy, and since the decisions that the government would make would be in line with that of the people's, the government would very likely promote many different kinds of trade and welcome foreign trade. This could diversify trade in the country, making its economy less susceptible to economic downturns as a single economic crash in one field would not affect those in other fields, and allow the economy of the country to sustain its stability and have time to recover.
Firstly, just an errata to my previous post. Regarding the last paragraph of the said post, I meant ‘economic stability’, not just stability in general. Apologies for the error.
Next, I believe we can move on, since I believe no one else has any more points on economic stability. Shao Wei seems to be overseas, so he’ll have to add on once he returns. We’ll go on without him first. Well then, let us discuss on whether/how Democracy creates Social stability in a society. I shall start first.
Social stability basically refers to the stability of the society, such as the mindset of the people. If a society is stable socially, there would be no riots, and the people would generally be happy with the government enough to not cause any social unrest. Thus, a society can only be stable if the people in the society are content with the government.
I believe that Democracy creates social stability in a society, due to an important aspect of the political system – The idea of the Majority Rule. Since the government is directly or indirectly chosen by the people, the government itself must have a lot of support from the people, or they would not have been elected into office. Thus, the people should generally be supportive of/content with the government.
Also, the ruling party in the government would also try not to anger/antagonize the citizens of their nation, especially during their decision-making, as if so, the ruling party may not get reelected into office in the next election. This is due to the fact that in a democratic state, the citizens of the nation are the ones with the power to determine who forms the government, directly or indirectly. Thus, the government would aim to forge better state-citizen relations, and generally try to make their citizens happy. This will cause social stability, as the people will be content with the government.
However, there is still the inherent problem of the Majority Rule, which is that the minority is ignored. However, I do believe that the government will still try to have the minority be content as well, but it is also unrealistic to come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.
Just to add on, social stability is easier to achieve with democracy because it focuses more on voting for a political ideology, rather than for a particular person. Also, a direct mandate makes the President more accountable to the people. As a result, decisions made would be in the best interests of people, thereby leading to social stability.
I partially agree with Yong Ngee's point.
Democracies would generally be more socially stable in terms of the number of people that one can please, especially direct democracy, in which people get to vote directly on specific policies. However, this will mean that it only appeals to the majority, and the minority will be ignored. Also, bills will only be passed if the majority agree on them, and not dependent on whether it is the best for the country. In Representative Democracy, if the general population agrees with the ways of the leaders, it does not matter whether the people have a say in it, but the society can still be stable.
I feel Shao Wei has a point there.
One problem of democrary is that we are unsure of whether the majority is truly suitale to make decisions. In a largely uneducated population for example, we can be quite sure that the decisions made by the people are not good ones. the supposedly good decisions made by the minority would be overwhelmed by the majority.
However, it is not true to say that this is always a bad thing. When the decisions are made by the majority, it would mean that the government has the support of the majority. This would mean that the people would be more cooperative of the government and that the government will face less opposition.
Regarding Douglas’ point, even though the decision made may not exactly be the correct one, as long as the majority of the people in the nation support it, it will create social stability, which is the point of our discussion.
Does anyone else have any other points to add about democracy creating social stability? If not, let us move on to how democracy creates Political stability in a society.
Political stability basically refers to the stability of a nation’s politics. If a nation is politically stable, the government itself would also be stable, and there would not be much trouble that was caused by politics, such as political rallies against the government, or political revolutions such as overthrowing of the government.
Since democracy comes in many differing forms, and each have their own advantages and disadvantages when it comes to political stability, let us focus on the few forms that were defined at the start of the discussion. To recap, the forms of democracy defined are Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy, with Representative Democracy including Presidentialism and Parliamentarism.
I shall first start on Presidentialism. As defined at the start of the discussion, there are two main branches of government in Presidentialism, the Executive and Legislative branches. Each are separate from each other, with the Executive branch headed by the President. Members of the Executive branch, which is the branch that governs the day-to-day affairs of the state, are nominated by the President, yet they have to gain the approval of the Legislate, which are made up of nominated representatives from different areas. Day-to-day affairs are not under the purview of the Legislate, as they only propose Bills and vote on them internally. The Bills, however, does affect the governing of the nation, so the Legislate does have influence in the governing of the nation. Members of both branches have fixed term of offices, although they could differ, as the term of office for the members of the Executive branch normally coincide with the term of office of the President. Talking about the President, his term of office is fixed, and unlike Parliamentarism, it is more difficult to bring down the President except when the President breaks the law, which would then result in his/her impeachment.
Now, talking about how Presidentialism creates political stability. Firstly, unlike Parlimentarism, in Presidentialism, the two branches of the government are separated, and this separation of powers allow each branch of government to serve as checks and balances for the other, thus making sure that each branch of government does not go too far out of line. As each branch would limit the other, there will be little fluctuations in the political situation, thus resulting in political stability. However, if both branches are in direct conflict with the other, it will result in a deadlock, but these situations are quite rare.
Secondly, the centralization of the decision making power to the President allows for speed and decisiveness in the decision making process. Compared to Parliamentarism, in Presidentialism, less power is given to the individual parties forming the government, meaning that the President is able to make decisions without being overly constrained by the Legislate, although the Legislate can override the President’s decision with a supermajority. Thus, the government will be able to respond quickly during times of emergency, instead of arguing and doing nothing. With a clear decision maker, there will be more political stability, without it, there will be internal conflict in the government, resulting in a weakened government, which is politically instable.
Lastly, a fixed term of office, especially for the President, will discourage the President from holding elections at the most opportune time for him/her, resulting in the President having a higher chance of being reelected. Also, with a fixed term of office, the political climate will be stable, as it will be extremely difficult too boot out the President prematurely due to political manipulations. If the government keeps changing, the nation will not be politically stable, as the government’s stand on issues will be ever changing. However, a fixed term of office would impede leadership change, as it is hard to remove an incumbent President from office early, even with impeachment. But then, at least there would still be a measure of political stability.
Political stability would depend a lot on the the situation which the majority of the population is in, for instance, standard of living, education, opinions, etc. This is because all these factors would determine teh type of decisions that the people would make. for instance, if the large part of the population is highly educated, then the decisions that they make would probably be a good one. However, if the majority of the population in the society is uneducated, or is naware of what is good fo the country, then democracy would definitely be unable to create political stability.
In democracy, the largest assumption is that the majority is always right, which may not always be the case. one reason how stability can be achieved is when the people are happy with the government as it was thirchoice. however, the minority is left out of the decision. Yes, it ma be said that the minority are allowed to vote and exercise their rights, but once they're decisions are overpowered, it would just mean that whatever opinions they have would not affect the policies and the choice of government.
I agree with douglas' point.
It is the same assumption that we had made while exercising democracy - if the people are unable to comprehend the use and what democracy is, the ideology would fail. Because the government is elected by the people, the people the type of pmust be able to discern for themselves their own needs and wants. As such, they would be able to elect a person who shares the same thoughts and opinions to represent themselves.
However, democracy might not always result in political stability. For example, the minority groups' interests would be ignored. This might lead to them revolting and protesting against the government. There is also a possibility that they might influence others, and thus cause chaos and disruption to a country.
In conclusion, democracy is not a fit-all solution. The main thing about this political system is to reduce the protests from the minority by compromising as much as possible. Only then will democracy really result in a politically stable society.
Well, it seems like we’ve decided not to discuss in too great detail, so I’ll refocus on general democracy rather than the various democratic systems when talking about political stability.
I agree with Douglas’ and Yong Ngee’s point, in that political stability would depend highly on the character and the type of person that gets elected by the people into the government. If incumbent politicians are elected into the government, or the politicians cannot agree with each other on issues, especially important ones, political deadlock, and very likely political instability will ensue. All this, though, as mentioned before, depends on the voters.
This fundamental assumption of democracy, which is that the majority is always right, may not be the best one, but this assumption is crucial for evaluating whether democracy creates stability in a country. Due to this assumption, the power to decide whether a country is be stable or not is given to the people to decide. The people are the defining trait in how effective democracy can create stability in a society.
But the main question has not been answered: Does democracy create stability in a society? I believe it does, to a certain extent. There are two main factors influencing the decisions of the voters, which in turn may affect the stability of the society:
1. The environment, or the conditions in the society. For instance, the educational level of the voters, the general standard of living, the different options that the voters have, etc. All this will affect a voter’s decision, and by extension, affecting who makes up the government.
If a society is made up of highly educated voters, educated choices will be made, such as during the evaluation of the differing political ideologies and the candidates for election. Educated people would pay close attention to the ideologies, as they would think of the larger picture, while uneducated people will likely focus more on the candidate himself. Focusing only on the candidate is a bad thing, as he could be popular but incumbent.
The standard of living also has an impact on voting decisions, as people will vote more for the candidate who promises to improve on their standard of living. This also extends to other factors, such as economical and social. If a society is lacking in something, the society will be more inclined to elect someone who is likely to resolve that problem.
2. Consistency of opinions/beliefs in the society. Even if the voters are highly educated, if there are split opinions amongst the people, the resultant government would likely compose of people with many widely differing viewpoints, intentions and ideals. With so much dissent in the government, it would be difficult to maintain any sort of stability in the country. Thus, there must be a clear majority opinion on an issue, especially when electing a person, or else there would be instability.
In conclusion, I believe that democracy can create stability in a society to a certain extent, because the effectiveness of democracy would have to depend on the society itself, or more specifically, the two factors stated above. Only if there is an ideal environment, and there is consistency in the opinions of the voters can stability be achieved in a democratic society.
expected is an essay, not the discussion, though it is interesting to read, to trace the development of thinking.
am taking your last entry as your essay. Still need to strengthen your argument here, for the pts are still generalised; more depth needed.
Post a Comment