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".
No comments:
Post a Comment