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.
Friday, May 30, 2008
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?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Democracy creates stability in a society
Today, many nation states institutionalize democracy as their political system. However, it has its fair share of ups and downs. Most believe that democracy can bring about peace and progress in a country, while some feel that general public do not have the capabilities to make right decisions. So does democracy really creates stability in a society? Please voice your own opinions on this issues.
First, let me define a few terms so as to set the groundwork for the discussion. Democracy can be defined as a system of government which political sovereignty is retained by the people. The power is either exercised directly by the citizens or through their elected representatives. Stability, in this case, refers to stable development and growth in a country in terms of political, social and economic aspects.
First, let me define a few terms so as to set the groundwork for the discussion. Democracy can be defined as a system of government which political sovereignty is retained by the people. The power is either exercised directly by the citizens or through their elected representatives. Stability, in this case, refers to stable development and growth in a country in terms of political, social and economic aspects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)