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?