“Democracy creates stability in a society.”
Stability in a society can be defined as the country having a widely respected government, and a maintenance or steady growth in economic areas, people have stable jobs and law and order prevails with minimal conflict, hence producing a desirable environment for anyone to live in.
For the above to happen, we would require the underlying variable – political stability. With political stability, conflicts would be at its minimal and research have shown that political stability is paramount to achieving economic growth, as quoted from ‘American Journal of Applied Sciences – Political Stability and Economic Growth’, 32.35 scores increasing of index of political stability leads to one percent increase in economic growth. With a steady progression in economic, we are safe to proclaim that the citizens would certainly benefit, as more jobs would be created and citizens would enjoy a steady income. Countries facing unrest now such as Burma, does not have the political stability, and riots occur to seek the right form of government. As such, we can see the importance of political stability in the overall stability of a society; it is of little possibility to enjoy economic and social stability without achieving political stability first.
Hence, the main thrust of the argument would be focused on whether democracy could create political stability in a society, as with political stability, it would lead to an overall stability and progression of the society. Political stability would be a government in reign that rules the people well, caring for their welfare and benefits, and allows the citizens to peacefully select and replace those in power.
Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. The basic fundamentals of democracy are to ensure the equality of citizens, economic freedom, individual rights and citizen participation in the political arena. To put forth simply, democracy allows the people to take into hands their own fate and how they want their lives to be governed.
Democracy gives a voice to every single individual citizen of the nation as everyone counts, this sense of equality enforced allows everyone in the society be it multi-racial or multi-religion and etc, to not be discriminated. Democracy aims to move towards a public consensus towards how the country should be run and who should run it. There is an accountability of the government to the people as it is ultimately the citizens who make the final choice (by voting). With the majority of the people’s support, it is undeniably better for the government to proceed on with their actions in no matter what areas of focus.
Majority consensus settles on making peace and contentment among the people, and riots and protests are least likely to break out as compared to governing forms such as Aristocracy. Thus we can see that, democracy allows citizens to peacefully select and replace those in power.
Furthermore, with democracy, opposition parties are present to serve as a check and balance for the ruling government, and this in turn spur development for the nation. For political stability, overlapping ideas is a necessary prerequisite, as it is a form of healthy competition. This pushes the ruling government to work harder and provide more for the people to win support for the next election. Hence, democracy spurs development of the country, making the government rule the country well, caring for the people’s welfare and their benefits. This appeases people, thus fulfilling the criteria of political stability.
It is arguable that if 51% of the nation wanted Political Party A and 49% of the nation wanted Political Party B, there would be a major clash of interests, and through democracy, Political Party A would be elected government incurring the wrath of 49% of the people. This hence, does not create political stability, but political divide. Although there may be such a case, but it is also arguably noted that 2% of a population of any society suffice as a rather large amount of people. In a small nation like Singapore, 2% would probably mean an 80, 000 man strong contingent supporting Political Party A. That is undoubtedly a huge difference, considering societies with bigger populations, therefore there will not be a significant political divide, and it is impossible to satisfy every citizen’s interest.
Some may argue that majority consensus may lead to scenarios that are detrimental to the nation as democracy is the "tyranny of the majority". A majority group may use democracy to oppress the minority, the minority would find it unfair, and when they cannot settle the dispute peacefully, violence ensues, disrupting the stability of the society.
During the conflict between the Sri Lankan Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, democracy was used as a tool to discriminate against the minority. In an effort to prevent the Tamil political parties from gaining control in Tamil-dominated regions, the government broke these regions into several parts to be roped into Sinhalese-dominated constituencies such that the Sinhalese still had the majority in elections. This kept the Sinhalese in power. The LTTE retaliated with violence against the government forces, disrupting the stability of the whole country. One would see democracy fail in creating political stability, and the stability of the society.
However, we must see that democracy in their form is essentially tweaked to the ruling government's benefits. This is thus not what the ideal principals and fundamentals of democracy wanted. Furthermore, this problem can be solved by representative democracy in which the minority has an equal say in politics. The right ideals of democracy is not one which the government seeks to deny rights and destroy opposition, in doing so, they destroy the fundamental principal of democracy, and thus destroy democracy itself.
Hence, we see not a loophole in democracy, but rather the misuse of it.
People, are undeniably imperfect, the nature of most men are arguably of self-interest. As such, they would find means to protect their own power and authority with little or no regard for others. However, if we were to judge any political system with the human factor, it is impossible to find the best form of government to create stability.
Democracy fulfils the yardstick for political stability, while we must still acknowledge the misuse of democracy though it cannot be use as an evidence for democracy not being successful for creating stability. As such, I conclude to say that if the fundamentals and ideals of democracy are acted upon to the optimal, it is definitely true that democracy can create political stability, and in so doing creating stability in the society.
In conclusion, I agree to the statement that democracy does indeed create stability in a society.
Stability in a society can be defined as the country having a widely respected government, and a maintenance or steady growth in economic areas, people have stable jobs and law and order prevails with minimal conflict, hence producing a desirable environment for anyone to live in.
For the above to happen, we would require the underlying variable – political stability. With political stability, conflicts would be at its minimal and research have shown that political stability is paramount to achieving economic growth, as quoted from ‘American Journal of Applied Sciences – Political Stability and Economic Growth’, 32.35 scores increasing of index of political stability leads to one percent increase in economic growth. With a steady progression in economic, we are safe to proclaim that the citizens would certainly benefit, as more jobs would be created and citizens would enjoy a steady income. Countries facing unrest now such as Burma, does not have the political stability, and riots occur to seek the right form of government. As such, we can see the importance of political stability in the overall stability of a society; it is of little possibility to enjoy economic and social stability without achieving political stability first.
Hence, the main thrust of the argument would be focused on whether democracy could create political stability in a society, as with political stability, it would lead to an overall stability and progression of the society. Political stability would be a government in reign that rules the people well, caring for their welfare and benefits, and allows the citizens to peacefully select and replace those in power.
Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. The basic fundamentals of democracy are to ensure the equality of citizens, economic freedom, individual rights and citizen participation in the political arena. To put forth simply, democracy allows the people to take into hands their own fate and how they want their lives to be governed.
Democracy gives a voice to every single individual citizen of the nation as everyone counts, this sense of equality enforced allows everyone in the society be it multi-racial or multi-religion and etc, to not be discriminated. Democracy aims to move towards a public consensus towards how the country should be run and who should run it. There is an accountability of the government to the people as it is ultimately the citizens who make the final choice (by voting). With the majority of the people’s support, it is undeniably better for the government to proceed on with their actions in no matter what areas of focus.
Majority consensus settles on making peace and contentment among the people, and riots and protests are least likely to break out as compared to governing forms such as Aristocracy. Thus we can see that, democracy allows citizens to peacefully select and replace those in power.
Furthermore, with democracy, opposition parties are present to serve as a check and balance for the ruling government, and this in turn spur development for the nation. For political stability, overlapping ideas is a necessary prerequisite, as it is a form of healthy competition. This pushes the ruling government to work harder and provide more for the people to win support for the next election. Hence, democracy spurs development of the country, making the government rule the country well, caring for the people’s welfare and their benefits. This appeases people, thus fulfilling the criteria of political stability.
It is arguable that if 51% of the nation wanted Political Party A and 49% of the nation wanted Political Party B, there would be a major clash of interests, and through democracy, Political Party A would be elected government incurring the wrath of 49% of the people. This hence, does not create political stability, but political divide. Although there may be such a case, but it is also arguably noted that 2% of a population of any society suffice as a rather large amount of people. In a small nation like Singapore, 2% would probably mean an 80, 000 man strong contingent supporting Political Party A. That is undoubtedly a huge difference, considering societies with bigger populations, therefore there will not be a significant political divide, and it is impossible to satisfy every citizen’s interest.
Some may argue that majority consensus may lead to scenarios that are detrimental to the nation as democracy is the "tyranny of the majority". A majority group may use democracy to oppress the minority, the minority would find it unfair, and when they cannot settle the dispute peacefully, violence ensues, disrupting the stability of the society.
During the conflict between the Sri Lankan Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, democracy was used as a tool to discriminate against the minority. In an effort to prevent the Tamil political parties from gaining control in Tamil-dominated regions, the government broke these regions into several parts to be roped into Sinhalese-dominated constituencies such that the Sinhalese still had the majority in elections. This kept the Sinhalese in power. The LTTE retaliated with violence against the government forces, disrupting the stability of the whole country. One would see democracy fail in creating political stability, and the stability of the society.
However, we must see that democracy in their form is essentially tweaked to the ruling government's benefits. This is thus not what the ideal principals and fundamentals of democracy wanted. Furthermore, this problem can be solved by representative democracy in which the minority has an equal say in politics. The right ideals of democracy is not one which the government seeks to deny rights and destroy opposition, in doing so, they destroy the fundamental principal of democracy, and thus destroy democracy itself.
Hence, we see not a loophole in democracy, but rather the misuse of it.
People, are undeniably imperfect, the nature of most men are arguably of self-interest. As such, they would find means to protect their own power and authority with little or no regard for others. However, if we were to judge any political system with the human factor, it is impossible to find the best form of government to create stability.
Democracy fulfils the yardstick for political stability, while we must still acknowledge the misuse of democracy though it cannot be use as an evidence for democracy not being successful for creating stability. As such, I conclude to say that if the fundamentals and ideals of democracy are acted upon to the optimal, it is definitely true that democracy can create political stability, and in so doing creating stability in the society.
In conclusion, I agree to the statement that democracy does indeed create stability in a society.
posted by haozhi. at
Thursday, May 29, 2008
0 Comments
