To begin, I feel that we must first define the term "democracy". Democracy is a system set up in place in a country by the government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. An example of exercising this power directly is in the form of a referendum. The indirect form would be, in the case of S'pore, electing Members of Parliament (MP) that will represent the people in Parliament to exercise the people's power. Democracy is built primarily on the ideology of liberalism.
Stability would mean free from change or variation, and in the context of a society, a stable society is one that is free from war and major conflicts within the society, one where peace is found throughout the country.
In addition, there are many different forms of stability, namely social stability, economical stability and political stability. All three of these aspects are closely linked to one another. Social stability refers to peace and harmony among the people; economic stability refers to, generally, a strong economy where unemployment rates are low and few fluctuating prices. Political stability refers to few internal struggles within the government, and that the people are satisfied with the government's way of running things.
Moving on, I agree that democracy creates stability. This is because people have more freedom and more power is given to the people rather than the state. As a result, people are able to vote for the party that they want, which will represent the people and pass laws that are beneficial to the people. As the party that forms the government would be what majority of the people voted for, most people would be happy with the laws that they pass and hence there would generally be peace, leading to stability.
I also agree that democracy creates stability in a society. Democracy ensures that people have a say in who they want as their leader, hence the opinions of the minorities are also heard. Democracy ensures that the right leadership is in place, through elections every few years, where there is a renewal of leadership if deemed necessary. And because of elections, imcumbents are also forced to ensure that his constituents' needs are met.
I do not fully agree with Weihan - what about the minority whose views are being disregarded? Given, the majority makes the best and most feasible decisions most of the times. However, there are times when the majority is wrong and minority correct. To quote one of the articles, " even if 99 out of 100 people wants to burn the remaining 1, it is still morally wrong". There may be an element of tyranny in this aspect of democracy. Therefore, Democracy, shifting power to majority groups, causes pontetial tensions to occur within the society between the minority and majority. This may bring about instability instead.
But isn't following the choice of the majority as fair as we can get? So, are u saying that democracy does not create stability all the time, that it creates stability only in the presence or absence of certain factors or circumstances, such as the absence of race-based politics?
I agree with Weihan that yes, democracy has its limitations in failing to explicitly deal with the needs of the minority. After all, the theory of utilitarianism is very much applicable in society, where logically, the majority's needs should be fulfilled rather than the minority's. There is no ideal method to counter the problem of catering to all needs, and I am of the viewpoint that democracy is the best on offer. Rather, I think that democracy relies very much on the leaders at the helm of the country. The leaders are the people who promotes and upholds the political institution which favours the society most. How well democracy fares depends on how the leaders develop it. In Taiwan, the two parties involved, the Kuo Min Tang and the Democratic Progress Party are two conflicting parties in the face of democracy. Yet is there stability here? Much political upheaval has shaken Taiwan, and with conflicts happening every other day, the political unrest has affected the different aspects of society, such as the people and the economy. Sri Lanka is another example of poor management of democracy by the leading figures of the country. Elections, originally meant to be an apparatus in promoting democracy, has become more of a farce instead.
To add on to what yuet cheong mentioned, democracy also very much involves the people of the state. Whether democracy works also depends on the people's acceptance of democracy. In states like Iraq and Somalia, despite efforts to introduce democracy,there is still no stability because different parties still believe in resort to armed conflict to get their way. Quoting from a Somali character speaking to a captured American helicopter pilot, Michael Durant, in the movie "Black Hawk Down", "In Somalia, killing is negotiation". This phrase reflects the mindsets of the different parties fighting for power in Somalia. When the mindsets of the people are tweaked towards violence as a solution, democracy will fail even before it can even be exercised.
Just to add on a bit more. The above point does not only include armed conflict as example. Other examples also include dictatorship, junta, autocracy, and more.
Now let us address democracy solely as a political institution existing as its own, without the support of leaders and the people of the country. Does democracy cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer?
I agree with that point. Those who are rich in the society bribe the poor people to vote for the party that is beneficial to the rich. Hence, there is no one to speak up for the poor people and the policies made by the party which favours the rich will only put the poor down. This will cause them to get even poorer and the rich will benefit a lot from the policies. Over time, the gap between the rich and the poor widens and soon the society will be out of control, with all power going to the rich.
Corruption will only exist as a result of a lack of strong and effective checks and balances, as the corrupted officials are not brought to justice. But it is near-impossible to completely wipe out corruption. There will be an extremely low rate of corruption if effective checks and balances, such as the Judiaciary, on the Government and politicians are in place. Hence i believe democracy creates stability in a society only when effective checks and balances are in place. To support my point, let's look at Singapore. Singapore has a strong judicial system in place, and corruption is often kept in check. As a result there is stability.
However, I do not agree with what you said about democracy only happening with effective check and balance. Democracy will still create stability even without an efficient one, however it might not lead to further complications in future.
Sorry for a typo on the previous comment. The last sentence is supposed to be "Democracy will still create stability even without an efficient one, however it might lead to further complications in future."
Other than this generalisation being made, Wei Han has correctly pointed out how a strong judicial system is vital in stability in a democratic society.
Just to look at whether democracy helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer from a different point of view. Democracy can bring in leaders who make use of their positions to financially benefit those who have connections with them. Democracy can also bring in leaders who come up with policies that genuinely aim to help the economically and financially less privileged. Democracy can also bring in leaders who do both. So this leads us back to leaders being one of the key factors that determine if democracy creates stability in a society.
What is the direction we are heading towards so far? I feel our views can be summed up by this sentenece: Democracy is a double-edged sword. There are many advantages and disadvantages that come along with democracy. The greatest advantage takes the form of freedom of speech in the society. Democracy, being based on the ideology of liberalism, promotes freedom of speech, where citizens can express their views on their lives or the society, in so doing suggesting improvements which could very much benefit the society. Equal rights, one of the main issues of democracy, is also an advantage in that everybody gets an equal chance, regardless of race, language or religion. One of the main apparatus through which democracy is expressed, the parlimentary elections, give the citizens a chance to decide for themselves who they want to lead the country. Every citizen's vote carry the same weightage regardless of status or race, thus ensuring the impartiality within society. Yet with these advantages, many shortcomings of democracy start to reveal themselves. In any elections, there may be a divided group of majority and minority calling for different wants. In this situation, the majority would always win the minority based on the principle of equality. This can be seen that democracy is strong yet weak! The minority's view would be disregarded in parliamentary elections, and in the end the minority group will always end up without a leader they want. However, we emphasised that, in the presence of a strong and capable leader, democracy can thrive under the leadership of the government. Democracy is a human concept where it is ultimately the humans who uphold certain rules to promote a certain political system, in this case democracy. The result of an election is that the party with the majority vote would get to lead the country. However, a good leader would ensure that the minority will not be ignored. In Singapore, for example, the ministers never fail to ensure that the minority's needs are catered to. For example, the PAP, the dominant party in Singapore, does their best to help the minority. It realizes that the young generation are the ones who vote for the opposition party and PAP tries to solve some of the issues which these youngsters encounter. For example, PAP have started bringing in younger and fresher faces into their cabinet in order to appeal to the younger generation and have a better understanding of the needs of the young ones through these young ministers, namely Mr Teo Ser Luck, who successfully pushed for the Youth Olympic Games in Singapore 2010. In other words, democracy will thrive only if this system is set in place by capable leaders who fully understand and recognize the ideals and problems of democracy. More examples: Zimbawee, though considered a paradise for white people, South Rhodesia suppressed black people politically and economically. When the nation eventually won its war for independence in 1980, the people eagerly hoped for a better future, regarded as possible thanks to Zimbabwe's significant human and material resources. It did not happen this way, and the primary responsibility for this failure lies with Robert Mugabe, abetted by the astonishing silence of left-wing intellectuals and the failure of the international community. This is a classic example of democracy gone wrong. President Mugabe, at first, enacted laws to eradicate corruption, but he was never able to enforce them. Instead, he has himself been progressively involved in corruption. In 1990, while a terrible famine was occurring in the country, the government exported food and he personally benefited from the proceeds. Further, in the absence of political will, all reforms for free public education have failed. The result? Zimbawee's agriculture and economy have suffered, with reportedly 70% of Zimbabwe's working-age population unemployed. The country is experiencing the exodus of skilled physicians and nurses who are escaping from extremely poor working conditions. In the face of all these setbacks, Zimbabwe is undergoing increasingly severe political repression, even though it still calls itself “a democracy”. The CIO--the Central Intelligence Organisation, similar to Saddam Hussein’s “Republican Guard”--is a 'political police totally dedicated to Mugabe and in charge of silencing and suppressing the opposition'. This example shows democracy at its worse, where leaders are abusing this political institution for other intentions. How about Russia's form of democracy? With reference to a video we watched in class recently titled "Russia - Village of Fools", shows another example where democracy has gone wrong due to poor leadership and a misled understanding of the concept. Until 1992, Russia had been strongly associated with communism, and detached from democracy, capitalism and religion. After breaking away from communism in 1992, Russia, with the intention of transforming into a democratic state, instead finds themselves in a state of anarchy, a result of democracy taken to extreme and misled extents. According to Russia's Mikhael Federowich, he views freedom and equality as something that "exists not on earth but only before God", and "being Russian is being God's appointed Czar." He views it more as an obligation to obey God than democracy in society. With the state leader failing to fulfil the ideals of democracy, the people are confused and unconvinced. Russia now is a state in anarchy - where there is an absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. The country is in political turmoil and disorder, a result of the human element gone wrong in the upholding on democracy. What does this conclude? That democracy actually involves the human element, and that the rise or fall of any political institution is driven by people who are involved in it.
So what does the human element in the forming of political institutions mean? Weihan's earlier point has shown it. "Democracy can bring in leaders who make use of their positions to financially benefit those who have connections with them. Democracy can also bring in leaders who come up with policies that genuinely aim to help the economically and financially less privileged." The leaders which democracy produces will in turn bring about stability and peace to the society. This is just one of the alternative ways of looking at the situation.
Weihan's earlier point leaves us with an interesting argument. Democracy and good leaders are closely associated such that they form a cycle. Democracy in a country will be upheld by leaders, who will in turn learn from the political institution of democracy. These leaders will be more enriched and ensure progress in the society. New changes in the society will lead to the people being happy and contented with their lives, allowing a stable, peacing and harmonious society. With a backdrop of a stable society, the good leaders will then go on to further develop on the ideals of democracy, as the society strives closer and closer to achieving a utopian state for the ideal of democracy.
Some might often argue that democracy distorts stability .To some extent this is true. Firstly, in a democratic country, the dispute over voting rights may contribute to conflicts. This is especially apparent among the certain disadvantaged groups in the country, like the immigrants, the poor, or the minority. Democratic countries proclaim that the power of the government derives from the people. But who are the people? Some countries state that their people are their citizens and thus only the citizens are allowed to vote. Therefore the immigrants, who are not the citizens, are deprived of the right to vote, though they still are contributing to the economic growth of the country. This results in resentment among the immigrants as no one could let out their voice and their interests are not represented. This eventually will contribute to conflict. Next, many would argue that democracy is “mob rule”. The relative majority rules over the minority. This is called “tyranny of the majority”, which implies that the government reflecting the majority’s view could oppress the minority and thus the interest of the minority is compromised. In Northern Ireland, the Protestants are the majority and the government favored the Protestants, as a result, the minority, the Catholics, received unfair treatment, like unequal house allocation. This had finally contributed to the conflicts. Moreover, democracy would hinder the development of a country or at least slacken the economic growth. This is most apparent in developing countries. In these countries, the opportunistic leaders might take the advantage of democracy to pursue their personal interests by rigging the election or make populist promise to certain interest group. This will finally result in corruption and thus hinder the economy. Furthermore, the ruling party in a democratic country often fails to see the whole picture of the development of the nation and instead they tend to focus on short term interest of the country .So the economy stagnates. Due to the prevailing corruption and the slow economic growth, unrest is brewed among people and conflicts might happen.
Yuet cheong has provided us with a good summary of the close relationship between democracy and leaders. There is also a close link between democracy and the citizens of the state. Whether the people accepts and follows the democratic process will be a key factor that determine if democracy creates stability. When the people follows the democratic process loyally, they are able to elect capable leaders of their choice, which will in turn lead them to success and stability, and further uphold and develop the ideals of democracy. Democracy will then gain more acceptance, and the democratic process will bring about stability. Hence there is a close relationship between democracy, the leaders, and the citizens.
Kenneth Lim's comments show a starkly contrasting viewpoint to examine the pros and cons of democracy. While the 'mob-rule' or tyranny of the majority over minority was discussed earlier, the other two points brought up are slightly more fresh. Firstly, the plight of minority may go unnoticed in elections, specifically the immigrants, who do not have voting rights. Secondly, that democracy may actually be a chance for opportunistic leaders to jump at to pursue personal interests. These points all link back to what we have discussed earlier - the principle that democracy is upheld by humans, and the human element is ultimately what defines democracy. A good leader would ensure that such problems do not occur, while an opportunistic one will cause democracy to fall easily with his selfish interests.
Hence the overall conclusion? Democracy can bring about stability with good leaders who fully understand and appreciate the ideals of democracy, and who recognizes the shortcomings of democracy, for which they will take steps to solve it. In cases of corrupted or misled leaders at the helm, democracy is no more than a political institution being abused to achieve the personal goals of the leader, causing instead, the downfall of the country. We have seen some examples of democracy being abused and misunderstood, wreaking havoc amongst society, namely Russia, Sri Lanka and Zimbawee. These countries share a common trait - leaaders who fail to grasp the ideals of democracy, who either abuse it or misintepreted it to cause dire effects to the society. The result is the people or citizens of the country being affected, bringing about conflicts and arguments, the trigger for future downfall of society. Poor leaders affect the people, and together brings out the worse in democracy. Democracy, standing as a political institution alone, cannot bring about stability in society. No conclusive results can be reached, as democracy only develops with the human element, which ultimately determines the outcome of society.
27 comments:
To begin, I feel that we must first define the term "democracy". Democracy is a system set up in place in a country by the government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. An example of exercising this power directly is in the form of a referendum. The indirect form would be, in the case of S'pore, electing Members of Parliament (MP) that will represent the people in Parliament to exercise the people's power. Democracy is built primarily on the ideology of liberalism.
Stability would mean free from change or variation, and in the context of a society, a stable society is one that is free from war and major conflicts within the society, one where peace is found throughout the country.
yes i agree
yes i agree
In addition, there are many different forms of stability, namely social stability, economical stability and political stability. All three of these aspects are closely linked to one another. Social stability refers to peace and harmony among the people; economic stability refers to, generally, a strong economy where unemployment rates are low and few fluctuating prices. Political stability refers to few internal struggles within the government, and that the people are satisfied with the government's way of running things.
Moving on, I agree that democracy creates stability. This is because people have more freedom and more power is given to the people rather than the state. As a result, people are able to vote for the party that they want, which will represent the people and pass laws that are beneficial to the people. As the party that forms the government would be what majority of the people voted for, most people would be happy with the laws that they pass and hence there would generally be peace, leading to stability.
I also agree that democracy creates stability in a society. Democracy ensures that people have a say in who they want as their leader, hence the opinions of the minorities are also heard.
Democracy ensures that the right leadership is in place, through elections every few years, where there is a renewal of leadership if deemed necessary.
And because of elections, imcumbents are also forced to ensure that his constituents' needs are met.
I do not fully agree with Weihan - what about the minority whose views are being disregarded? Given, the majority makes the best and most feasible decisions most of the times. However, there are times when the majority is wrong and minority correct. To quote one of the articles, " even if 99 out of 100 people wants to burn the remaining 1, it is still morally wrong". There may be an element of
tyranny in this aspect of democracy. Therefore, Democracy, shifting power to majority groups, causes pontetial tensions to occur within the society between the minority and majority. This may bring about instability instead.
But isn't following the choice of the majority as fair as we can get?
So, are u saying that democracy does not create stability all the time, that it creates stability only in the presence or absence of certain factors or circumstances, such as the absence of race-based politics?
I agree with Weihan that yes, democracy has its limitations in failing to explicitly deal with the needs of the minority. After all, the theory of utilitarianism is very much applicable in society, where logically, the majority's needs should be fulfilled rather than the minority's. There is no ideal method to counter the problem of catering to all needs, and I am of the viewpoint that democracy is the best on offer.
Rather, I think that democracy relies very much on the leaders at the helm of the country. The leaders are the people who promotes and upholds the political institution which favours the society most. How well democracy fares depends on how the leaders develop it. In Taiwan, the two parties involved, the Kuo Min Tang and the Democratic Progress Party are two conflicting parties in the face of democracy. Yet is there stability here? Much political upheaval has shaken Taiwan, and with conflicts happening every other day, the political unrest has affected the different aspects of society, such as the people and the economy. Sri Lanka is another example of poor management of democracy by the leading figures of the country. Elections, originally meant to be an apparatus in promoting democracy, has become more of a farce instead.
To add on to what yuet cheong mentioned, democracy also very much involves the people of the state. Whether democracy works also depends on the people's acceptance of democracy. In states like Iraq and Somalia, despite efforts to introduce democracy,there is still no stability because different parties still believe in resort to armed conflict to get their way. Quoting from a Somali character speaking to a captured American helicopter pilot, Michael Durant, in the movie "Black Hawk Down", "In Somalia, killing is negotiation". This phrase reflects the mindsets of the different parties fighting for power in Somalia. When the mindsets of the people are tweaked towards violence as a solution, democracy will fail even before it can even be exercised.
Just to add on a bit more. The above point does not only include armed conflict as example. Other examples also include dictatorship, junta, autocracy, and more.
Now let us address democracy solely as a political institution existing as its own, without the support of leaders and the people of the country. Does democracy cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer?
I agree with that point. Those who are rich in the society bribe the poor people to vote for the party that is beneficial to the rich. Hence, there is no one to speak up for the poor people and the policies made by the party which favours the rich will only put the poor down. This will cause them to get even poorer and the rich will benefit a lot from the policies. Over time, the gap between the rich and the poor widens and soon the society will be out of control, with all power going to the rich.
Corruption will only exist as a result of a lack of strong and effective checks and balances, as the corrupted officials are not brought to justice. But it is near-impossible to completely wipe out corruption. There will be an extremely low rate of corruption if effective checks and balances, such as the Judiaciary, on the Government and politicians are in place. Hence i believe democracy creates stability in a society only when effective checks and balances are in place.
To support my point, let's look at Singapore. Singapore has a strong judicial system in place, and corruption is often kept in check. As a result there is stability.
However, I do not agree with what you said about democracy only happening with effective check and balance. Democracy will still create stability even without an efficient one, however it might not lead to further complications in future.
Sorry for a typo on the previous comment. The last sentence is supposed to be "Democracy will still create stability even without an efficient one, however it might lead to further complications in future."
Other than this generalisation being made, Wei Han has correctly pointed out how a strong judicial system is vital in stability in a democratic society.
Just to look at whether democracy helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer from a different point of view. Democracy can bring in leaders who make use of their positions to financially benefit those who have connections with them. Democracy can also bring in leaders who come up with policies that genuinely aim to help the economically and financially less privileged. Democracy can also bring in leaders who do both.
So this leads us back to leaders being one of the key factors that determine if democracy creates stability in a society.
What is the direction we are heading towards so far? I feel our views can be summed up by this sentenece: Democracy is a double-edged sword. There are many advantages and disadvantages that come along with democracy.
The greatest advantage takes the form of freedom of speech in the society. Democracy, being based on the ideology of liberalism, promotes freedom of speech, where citizens can express their views on their lives or the society, in so doing suggesting improvements which could very much benefit the society. Equal rights, one of the main issues of democracy, is also an advantage in that everybody gets an equal chance, regardless of race, language or religion. One of the main apparatus through which democracy is expressed, the parlimentary elections, give the citizens a chance to decide for themselves who they want to lead the country. Every citizen's vote carry the same weightage regardless of status or race, thus ensuring the impartiality within society.
Yet with these advantages, many shortcomings of democracy start to reveal themselves. In any elections, there may be a divided group of majority and minority calling for different wants. In this situation, the majority would always win the minority based on the principle of equality. This can be seen that democracy is strong yet weak! The minority's view would be disregarded in parliamentary elections, and in the end the minority group will always end up without a leader they want.
However, we emphasised that, in the presence of a strong and capable leader, democracy can thrive under the leadership of the government. Democracy is a human concept where it is ultimately the humans who uphold certain rules to promote a certain political system, in this case democracy. The result of an election is that the party with the majority vote would get to lead the country. However, a good leader would ensure that the minority will not be ignored. In Singapore, for example, the ministers never fail to ensure that the minority's needs are catered to. For example, the PAP, the dominant party in Singapore, does their best to help the minority. It realizes that the young generation are the ones who vote for the opposition party and PAP tries to solve some of the issues which these youngsters encounter. For example, PAP have started bringing in younger and fresher faces into their cabinet in order to appeal to the younger generation and have a better understanding of the needs of the young ones through these young ministers, namely Mr Teo Ser Luck, who successfully pushed for the Youth Olympic Games in Singapore 2010.
In other words, democracy will thrive only if this system is set in place by capable leaders who fully understand and recognize the ideals and problems of democracy. More examples: Zimbawee, though considered a paradise for white people, South Rhodesia suppressed black people politically and economically. When the nation eventually won its war for independence in 1980, the people eagerly hoped for a better future, regarded as possible thanks to Zimbabwe's significant human and material resources. It did not happen this way, and the primary responsibility for this failure lies with Robert Mugabe, abetted by the astonishing silence of left-wing intellectuals and the failure of the international community.
This is a classic example of democracy gone wrong. President Mugabe, at first, enacted laws to eradicate corruption, but he was never able to enforce them. Instead, he has himself been progressively involved in corruption. In 1990, while a terrible famine was occurring in the country, the government exported food and he personally benefited from the proceeds. Further, in the absence of political will, all reforms for free public education have failed. The result? Zimbawee's agriculture and economy have suffered, with reportedly 70% of Zimbabwe's working-age population unemployed. The country is experiencing the exodus of skilled physicians and nurses who are escaping from extremely poor working conditions.
In the face of all these setbacks, Zimbabwe is undergoing increasingly severe political repression, even though it still calls itself “a democracy”. The CIO--the Central Intelligence Organisation, similar to Saddam Hussein’s “Republican Guard”--is a 'political police totally dedicated to Mugabe and in charge of silencing and suppressing the opposition'. This example shows democracy at its worse, where leaders are abusing this political institution for other intentions.
How about Russia's form of democracy? With reference to a video we watched in class recently titled "Russia - Village of Fools", shows another example where democracy has gone wrong due to poor leadership and a misled understanding of the concept. Until 1992, Russia had been strongly associated with communism, and detached from democracy, capitalism and religion. After breaking away from communism in 1992, Russia, with the intention of transforming into a democratic state, instead finds themselves in a state of anarchy, a result of democracy taken to extreme and misled extents. According to Russia's Mikhael Federowich, he views freedom and equality as something that "exists not on earth but only before God", and "being Russian is being God's appointed Czar." He views it more as an obligation to obey God than democracy in society. With the state leader failing to fulfil the ideals of democracy, the people are confused and unconvinced. Russia now is a state in anarchy - where there is an absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. The country is in political turmoil and disorder, a result of the human element gone wrong in the upholding on democracy.
What does this conclude? That democracy actually involves the human element, and that the rise or fall of any political institution is driven by people who are involved in it.
So what does the human element in the forming of political institutions mean? Weihan's earlier point has shown it.
"Democracy can bring in leaders who make use of their positions to financially benefit those who have connections with them. Democracy can also bring in leaders who come up with policies that genuinely aim to help the economically and financially less privileged." The leaders which democracy produces will in turn bring about stability and peace to the society. This is just one of the alternative ways of looking at the situation.
Weihan's earlier point leaves us with an interesting argument. Democracy and good leaders are closely associated such that they form a cycle. Democracy in a country will be upheld by leaders, who will in turn learn from the political institution of democracy. These leaders will be more enriched and ensure progress in the society. New changes in the society will lead to the people being happy and contented with their lives, allowing a stable, peacing and harmonious society. With a backdrop of a stable society, the good leaders will then go on to further develop on the ideals of democracy, as the society strives closer and closer to achieving a utopian state for the ideal of democracy.
Some might often argue that democracy distorts stability .To some extent this is true.
Firstly, in a democratic country, the dispute over voting rights may contribute to conflicts. This is especially apparent among the certain disadvantaged groups in the country, like the immigrants, the poor, or the minority. Democratic countries proclaim that the power of the government derives from the people. But who are the people? Some countries state that their people are their citizens and thus only the citizens are allowed to vote. Therefore the immigrants, who are not the citizens, are deprived of the right to vote, though they still are contributing to the economic growth of the country. This results in resentment among the immigrants as no one could let out their voice and their interests are not represented. This eventually will contribute to conflict.
Next, many would argue that democracy is “mob rule”. The relative majority rules over the minority. This is called “tyranny of the majority”, which implies that the government reflecting the majority’s view could oppress the minority and thus the interest of the minority is compromised. In Northern Ireland, the Protestants are the majority and the government favored the Protestants, as a result, the minority, the Catholics, received unfair treatment, like unequal house allocation. This had finally contributed to the conflicts.
Moreover, democracy would hinder the development of a country or at least slacken the economic growth. This is most apparent in developing countries. In these countries, the opportunistic leaders might take the advantage of democracy to pursue their personal interests by rigging the election or make populist promise to certain interest group. This will finally result in corruption and thus hinder the economy. Furthermore, the ruling party in a democratic country often fails to see the whole picture of the development of the nation and instead they tend to focus on short term interest of the country .So the economy stagnates. Due to the prevailing corruption and the slow economic growth, unrest is brewed among people and conflicts might happen.
Yuet cheong has provided us with a good summary of the close relationship between democracy and leaders. There is also a close link between democracy and the citizens of the state. Whether the people accepts and follows the democratic process will be a key factor that determine if democracy creates stability. When the people follows the democratic process loyally, they are able to elect capable leaders of their choice, which will in turn lead them to success and stability, and further uphold and develop the ideals of democracy. Democracy will then gain more acceptance, and the democratic process will bring about stability. Hence there is a close relationship between democracy, the leaders, and the citizens.
Kenneth Lim's comments show a starkly contrasting viewpoint to examine the pros and cons of democracy. While the 'mob-rule' or tyranny of the majority over minority was discussed earlier, the other two points brought up are slightly more fresh. Firstly, the plight of minority may go unnoticed in elections, specifically the immigrants, who do not have voting rights. Secondly, that democracy may actually be a chance for opportunistic leaders to jump at to pursue personal interests. These points all link back to what we have discussed earlier - the principle that democracy is upheld by humans, and the human element is ultimately what defines democracy. A good leader would ensure that such problems do not occur, while an opportunistic one will cause democracy to fall easily with his selfish interests.
Hence the overall conclusion? Democracy can bring about stability with good leaders who fully understand and appreciate the ideals of democracy, and who recognizes the shortcomings of democracy, for which they will take steps to solve it. In cases of corrupted or misled leaders at the helm, democracy is no more than a political institution being abused to achieve the personal goals of the leader, causing instead, the downfall of the country. We have seen some examples of democracy being abused and misunderstood, wreaking havoc amongst society, namely Russia, Sri Lanka and Zimbawee. These countries share a common trait - leaaders who fail to grasp the ideals of democracy, who either abuse it or misintepreted it to cause dire effects to the society. The result is the people or citizens of the country being affected, bringing about conflicts and arguments, the trigger for future downfall of society. Poor leaders affect the people, and together brings out the worse in democracy.
Democracy, standing as a political institution alone, cannot bring about stability in society. No conclusive results can be reached, as democracy only develops with the human element, which ultimately determines the outcome of society.
Post a Comment