As Vincent said, with the right type of democracy and competent people, democracy and create stability for a country, no matter where or what type of democracy it is. Of course, we see many examples of this today, like our very own Singapore.
However, we mustn’t forget that there exists another group of democracies, which on the other hand, aren’t so successful, and isn’t exactly very stable. Firstly, we have Nigeria.
After gaining independence from the United Kingdom in October 1, 1960, the corruption of the political processes in the 1966 elections, along with some religious disequilibrium, led to a considerable number of consecutive military coups and assassinations of leaders. One significant event was the breaking away of the eastern region in May 1967. It declared itself an independent state called the Republic of Biafra. On July 6, 1967, the remaining Nigerian side attacked Biafra, starting a bloody 30-month war which eventually ended in January 1970.
After his predecessor was overthrown by a military coup in 1985, the new head of state, Ibrahim Babangida, set 1990 as the official deadline for a return to democratic governance. He also enrolled Nigeria in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which as a result, inflamed religious tensions in the nation. Babangida pushed back his promised return to democracy to 1992 after surviving an abortive coup.
Finally, free and fair elections were held on June 12, 1993. However, Babangida went back on his word when he declared the results showing a presidential victory for Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola null and void. This sparked mass civilian violence in protest, forcing Babangida to relinquish office.
Upon electing Olusegun Obasanjo as the new President, Nigeria re-achieved democracy in 1999, ending about thirty years of limitary rule. Despite Obasanjo showing willingness to fight corruption, the 1999 and 2003 elections which brought him to power were condemned as “unfree” and “unfair”, and he was accused of being just as corrupted.
The current President of Nigeria, Umaru Yar’Adua of the People’s Democratic Party, was elected into power during the latest general election of 2007. This was witnessed by members of the international community and condemned as being massively flawed.
Nigeria is meant to be a Federal Republic modeled after the United States. But why is there such a huge difference in the outcome of the democracies, in terms of the stability created? In my opinion, the key difference is the choice made by the people.
The common people have to be able to choose wisely. Choosing the wrong leader could lead to the rigging of the next general election. This flaw in the system of democracy creates an endless loop of corruption, which in the case of Babangida, was eventually broken by mass civilian protest. This defeats the entire purpose; we don’t want to use violence to solve problems as such a solution compromises on the stability of the nation itself. As long as the people chooses honest and competent leaders, much of the rest is should be well taken care of.
As Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said during the 7th RI Lecture, “The real thing we should ask ourselves: In 30 years’ time, will Singapore continue to have a government that is honest, competent and cares for its people? If the answer to that question is yes, then it almost doesn’t matter which party is in power in 30 years’ time.”
Monday, July 7, 2008
Further discussion
I agree with Vincent's point. Indeed, democracy can never be true democracy without the presence of good leadership. In fact, it is the basic foundation for any form of government to function. Without good leadership, democracy can be manipulated to suit the interest of certain group of people, instead of the majority. One classic example would be the conflict in Northern Ireland. Catholics have larger population size than Protestants in the country, but Protestant-dominated government manipulated the law so that it can win the election and continue to stay in power. The law states that every household is entitled one vote, while companies are entitled more. Since most of the Catholics are homeless as government gives higher housing priority to the Protestants, they are not entitled to vote at all. In this way, Protestants, though being the minority, is able to dominate the political scene. This kind of democracy is not true democracy as the fundamental principle of equality is not upheld.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Definitions
Currently, all of us are talking about democracy. However, while we comment and compare democracies around the world, we have to note that every democracy is different in their own ways. Usually, a state that is a democracy is usually termed a "republic", but many different countries on the freedom spectrum are republics.
For example, France, Singapore, and even countries like Zimbabwe are listed as Republics. Most of us know that France has been labelled a true democracy by many, given its long history since the French Revolution. On the other hand, "democratic" Singapore is dominated by a single party, with the PAP in power for more than 40 years. Furthermore, Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, has seen election manipulation. Mugabe has also suppressed freedom of the press and freedom of speech, key tenets of democracy. With so many contrasting republics that proclaim themselves democracies, what and who is really a democracy?
In my opinion, as human nature is divergent, so will democracy continue to be divergent. There will never be a single system of democracy that every state adopts, due to differences in size, culture, amongst a multitude of other factors.
From the three republics above, it is possible to judge their successes, from France's liberalism, Singapore's economic stability and Zimbabwe's 10,500,000% (10.5 million percent) inflation. The similarities between successful democracies seems to be a good structure and system of governance, with capable leaders at the helm.
Ultimately, the success of a government depends on whether the state can prosper. With the right type of democracy and competent people, democracy and create stability for a country, no matter where or what type of democracy it is.
For example, France, Singapore, and even countries like Zimbabwe are listed as Republics. Most of us know that France has been labelled a true democracy by many, given its long history since the French Revolution. On the other hand, "democratic" Singapore is dominated by a single party, with the PAP in power for more than 40 years. Furthermore, Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, has seen election manipulation. Mugabe has also suppressed freedom of the press and freedom of speech, key tenets of democracy. With so many contrasting republics that proclaim themselves democracies, what and who is really a democracy?
In my opinion, as human nature is divergent, so will democracy continue to be divergent. There will never be a single system of democracy that every state adopts, due to differences in size, culture, amongst a multitude of other factors.
From the three republics above, it is possible to judge their successes, from France's liberalism, Singapore's economic stability and Zimbabwe's 10,500,000% (10.5 million percent) inflation. The similarities between successful democracies seems to be a good structure and system of governance, with capable leaders at the helm.
Ultimately, the success of a government depends on whether the state can prosper. With the right type of democracy and competent people, democracy and create stability for a country, no matter where or what type of democracy it is.
Advantages of democracy
Much about the shortcomings of the democracy have been addressed in the previous posts. Now I shall discuss about the advantage of democracy.
Firstly, democracy has a multi-party system. Different parties compete with one another to win seats in the parliament. The party which has the most number of seats will be the ruling party. However, once the ruling party loses the trust of the people, it would run the risk of being replaced by its opposition party. For example, if people are not satisfied with PAP, they can always vote for WP or SDP if they are better. This provides a system of checks and balances and ensure a constantly high level of standard in the ruling party.
Secondly,there is high level of accountability of government officials. As they are elected by the people, they must act as people's voice and perform their duties according to the will and wishes of the people. If any official is corrupted, he will be immediately stripped off his power as people lose trust in him.
Lastly, there is high level of transparency in the government. Citizens are kept constantly informed about what is happening in the country. Regular public meetings are also held to discuss social issues with general public. Transparency ensures that citizens know about the country, care about the country, and decide for the country. In comparison, in a country which does not practice democracy, many government decisions are kept unknown from the general public. As people do not understand about the government, they do not care about it. In the long run, people become extremely unsatisfied about the government and many of them migrate to other countries. This would lead to brain drain and slow down the development of the country.
A point that has been reiterated over and over again is the "tyranny of the majority". It is argued that democracy only satisfies the needs of the majority, but ignores that of the minority. However, it must be noted that we do not live in a utopian society, and different people have different opinions upon certain issues. Even the best form of government cannot satisfy the need of everyone. Democracy, as compared to other forms of government, is able to satisfy the needs of most number of people. Furthermore, the principle of democracy states that "the rights of the minority must be protected" and "people not in power must be allowed to organise and speak out". The minority is not totally deprived of their power. Thus, democracy cannot be said to be "tyranny of the majority".
Firstly, democracy has a multi-party system. Different parties compete with one another to win seats in the parliament. The party which has the most number of seats will be the ruling party. However, once the ruling party loses the trust of the people, it would run the risk of being replaced by its opposition party. For example, if people are not satisfied with PAP, they can always vote for WP or SDP if they are better. This provides a system of checks and balances and ensure a constantly high level of standard in the ruling party.
Secondly,there is high level of accountability of government officials. As they are elected by the people, they must act as people's voice and perform their duties according to the will and wishes of the people. If any official is corrupted, he will be immediately stripped off his power as people lose trust in him.
Lastly, there is high level of transparency in the government. Citizens are kept constantly informed about what is happening in the country. Regular public meetings are also held to discuss social issues with general public. Transparency ensures that citizens know about the country, care about the country, and decide for the country. In comparison, in a country which does not practice democracy, many government decisions are kept unknown from the general public. As people do not understand about the government, they do not care about it. In the long run, people become extremely unsatisfied about the government and many of them migrate to other countries. This would lead to brain drain and slow down the development of the country.
A point that has been reiterated over and over again is the "tyranny of the majority". It is argued that democracy only satisfies the needs of the majority, but ignores that of the minority. However, it must be noted that we do not live in a utopian society, and different people have different opinions upon certain issues. Even the best form of government cannot satisfy the need of everyone. Democracy, as compared to other forms of government, is able to satisfy the needs of most number of people. Furthermore, the principle of democracy states that "the rights of the minority must be protected" and "people not in power must be allowed to organise and speak out". The minority is not totally deprived of their power. Thus, democracy cannot be said to be "tyranny of the majority".
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Group Discussion
Though democracy might be overly ideal, and seemingly it makes far too many assumptions to be achievable. I think if this system of governance can survive generations and still exsits on the international political stage or theorically, there must be a reason for it. In fact, the majority of worldwide nations have governments that are democratic in some way. Why is this so? This is because people can defend their interests at the best. In the system of democracy the government abides the rules to rule the people, and the people have their votes to limit the power of the government. This is about power balancing and inter-monitoring. When this balance is tilted, people on the lesser side will naturally feel insecured. The result can be as severe as riots that happened in Singapore in the 1960s.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Democracy argumentative essay
Blog entry II
Democracy creates stability in a society?
Democracy is a system in the government, through which the wills of different groups of people living in the same country are voiced out and represented. In this system the people have great influence over their government. Ideally it can be interpreted as people are ruling themselves, but if it is assumed that therefore democratic government creates stability in a society. I disagree.
Many may agree with the statement saying that democracy can give us a stable society. This is because it empowers every individual in the society, and allowing them to have the rights to what they want to live with. For example, in the 1960s, the people of Singapore had voted for the merger of Malaya. The supportive votes for merger empowered the PAP and entrusted it with the nation’s faith, meanwhile the communists just lost its grip over Singaporeans as they were no longer representing the will of the people. This showed that the government is the people’s voices and hands, they should be satisfactory of what they have and thus the society is stable.
However, different groups of people in a society have different interests. In the voting system, usually the majority group of people will get what they desire. That is not the will of the whole population. The minority gets deprived of their interests and even discrimination. For instance, In Sri Lanka the Sinhalese make up more than 70% of the whole population. They feel threatened by the presence of the Tamils who are only 30% of the population. After independence, the Sinhalese got into power and implemented many discriminative laws against the Tamils in areas such as education, employment and so on. The Tamils have to live under-privileged because they are the minority in the nation. Their votes would not help their leaders in getting a key position in the government so that they can make a difference for the Tamils. In this case, democracy is a double-edged sword that serves the majority of the people and yet intensifies the hatred between groups of people, which in turn causes instability in the nation.
Lastly, the system of democracy makes the assumption that the people are intelligent enough to make the most correct decision for themselves. This can be proven wrong in many cases. Hitler was an excellent politician who was capable of controlling and using the faith the people had in him. The Germans voted Hitler into the government through democratic means. Instead of bringing hope for the nation, he stirred up World War 2 and brought the Germans a disastrous defeat in the war. Hitler was obvious the wrong person that the Germans had trusted. This shows that democracy has too many crucial variables that are not in control of the people. The people have to make insightful judgments based on solely promises from politician instead of concrete facts. Therefore if the judgments made by the people have low credibility, we have to gamble to trust that democracy can bring stability to the society.
In conclusion, I feel that democracy is an ideal system of governance to bring about a stable and satisfactory society, only if many assumptions such as just judgments and intelligent decision by everyone in the society. Realistically speaking, I think it is not yet achievable to have such an ideal democratic government due to the egocentric human nature, which will greatly affect the judgment of every individual.
Democracy creates stability in a society?
Democracy is a system in the government, through which the wills of different groups of people living in the same country are voiced out and represented. In this system the people have great influence over their government. Ideally it can be interpreted as people are ruling themselves, but if it is assumed that therefore democratic government creates stability in a society. I disagree.
Many may agree with the statement saying that democracy can give us a stable society. This is because it empowers every individual in the society, and allowing them to have the rights to what they want to live with. For example, in the 1960s, the people of Singapore had voted for the merger of Malaya. The supportive votes for merger empowered the PAP and entrusted it with the nation’s faith, meanwhile the communists just lost its grip over Singaporeans as they were no longer representing the will of the people. This showed that the government is the people’s voices and hands, they should be satisfactory of what they have and thus the society is stable.
However, different groups of people in a society have different interests. In the voting system, usually the majority group of people will get what they desire. That is not the will of the whole population. The minority gets deprived of their interests and even discrimination. For instance, In Sri Lanka the Sinhalese make up more than 70% of the whole population. They feel threatened by the presence of the Tamils who are only 30% of the population. After independence, the Sinhalese got into power and implemented many discriminative laws against the Tamils in areas such as education, employment and so on. The Tamils have to live under-privileged because they are the minority in the nation. Their votes would not help their leaders in getting a key position in the government so that they can make a difference for the Tamils. In this case, democracy is a double-edged sword that serves the majority of the people and yet intensifies the hatred between groups of people, which in turn causes instability in the nation.
Lastly, the system of democracy makes the assumption that the people are intelligent enough to make the most correct decision for themselves. This can be proven wrong in many cases. Hitler was an excellent politician who was capable of controlling and using the faith the people had in him. The Germans voted Hitler into the government through democratic means. Instead of bringing hope for the nation, he stirred up World War 2 and brought the Germans a disastrous defeat in the war. Hitler was obvious the wrong person that the Germans had trusted. This shows that democracy has too many crucial variables that are not in control of the people. The people have to make insightful judgments based on solely promises from politician instead of concrete facts. Therefore if the judgments made by the people have low credibility, we have to gamble to trust that democracy can bring stability to the society.
In conclusion, I feel that democracy is an ideal system of governance to bring about a stable and satisfactory society, only if many assumptions such as just judgments and intelligent decision by everyone in the society. Realistically speaking, I think it is not yet achievable to have such an ideal democratic government due to the egocentric human nature, which will greatly affect the judgment of every individual.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
First, I want to start off by concurring with Gao Bo's definitions. Indeed, in my opinion, the key to an intellectual stimulating discussion are good definitions. With the definitions in mind, I shall start the ball rolling.
I disagree with the motion that democracy creates stability in a society. Firstly, on the theoretical aspect, democracy commits certain unjustified logical jumps. Democracy assumes that the masses have the very ability to make good decisions for themselves; that they are smart enough inherently. In reality, this might not be so true. Often in the world that we live in, there exists a stark difference between the theoretical and the applied. Given the theoretical flaws, it is more important to investigate real examples.
A good example would be Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Despite being a dictator and a fascist, Hitler was elected into power through democratic means. He contested the Weimar Republic under the Nazi party and succeeded in getting the popular vote. After being in power, he consolidated his power through events like the Reichstag Fire, the Night of the Long Knives and the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch. His being in power subsequently led to the rise of Nazi Germany, and later contributing a major part in World War II as Axis Powers. To say that democracy leads to stability is to conveniently ignore historical incidences that happened. Clearly, World War II saw the loss of millions of lives, and many more millions displaced as a result of bloody conflict.
At this point of time, I would like to point out the democracy has often more than one facade. It can be viewed as a system of governance, but alternatively, there is nothing wrong with viewing democracy as a process.
If we consider democratic process as a part of the big democracy umbrella, then the Soviet Union of the 1980s can challenge the motion. Under Gorbachev's rule, political openness was advocated, in what was known as glasnost. The Communist Party lost its tight stranglehold on the media, and the cult of personality that former leaders like Stalin tried so hard to establish was being questioned by the people. Furthermore, there were elections to vote people into regional assemblies of the republics of the Soviet Union - a clear sign of democratic processes. As a result, the people's view towards the government changed radically, and calls for independence grew louder and louder, till the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. After communism was overthrown, Russia's GDP declined drastically, and inflation shot up; there was an economic crisis. In that way, democracy did nothing to help stabilise the nation, conversely, it helped to exacerbate the situation.
It is clear from the above that democracy can lead to disastrous results economically, politically and socially.
How about other thoughts that democracy might be good?
I disagree with the motion that democracy creates stability in a society. Firstly, on the theoretical aspect, democracy commits certain unjustified logical jumps. Democracy assumes that the masses have the very ability to make good decisions for themselves; that they are smart enough inherently. In reality, this might not be so true. Often in the world that we live in, there exists a stark difference between the theoretical and the applied. Given the theoretical flaws, it is more important to investigate real examples.
A good example would be Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Despite being a dictator and a fascist, Hitler was elected into power through democratic means. He contested the Weimar Republic under the Nazi party and succeeded in getting the popular vote. After being in power, he consolidated his power through events like the Reichstag Fire, the Night of the Long Knives and the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch. His being in power subsequently led to the rise of Nazi Germany, and later contributing a major part in World War II as Axis Powers. To say that democracy leads to stability is to conveniently ignore historical incidences that happened. Clearly, World War II saw the loss of millions of lives, and many more millions displaced as a result of bloody conflict.
At this point of time, I would like to point out the democracy has often more than one facade. It can be viewed as a system of governance, but alternatively, there is nothing wrong with viewing democracy as a process.
If we consider democratic process as a part of the big democracy umbrella, then the Soviet Union of the 1980s can challenge the motion. Under Gorbachev's rule, political openness was advocated, in what was known as glasnost. The Communist Party lost its tight stranglehold on the media, and the cult of personality that former leaders like Stalin tried so hard to establish was being questioned by the people. Furthermore, there were elections to vote people into regional assemblies of the republics of the Soviet Union - a clear sign of democratic processes. As a result, the people's view towards the government changed radically, and calls for independence grew louder and louder, till the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. After communism was overthrown, Russia's GDP declined drastically, and inflation shot up; there was an economic crisis. In that way, democracy did nothing to help stabilise the nation, conversely, it helped to exacerbate the situation.
It is clear from the above that democracy can lead to disastrous results economically, politically and socially.
How about other thoughts that democracy might be good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)