I agree to a large extent. Democracy allows everyone to have a part to play in decision making, like electing a government. Unlike communism, rewards are given based on merit, thus everyone has to work hard. This contributes to the stability of a society because then everyone works hard and plays their part in society. If not for democracy, people may just slack during their jobs knowing that they will still get their income.
Also, by giving everyone the right to vote for their own government etc, people in the society will feel more attached to their soceity, thus making everyone do their best to contribute to society.
And since everyone does their best for the society, the society will achieve stability.
In a country such as Singapore, i feel that democracy play a major role in upholding stability. As a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, it is important to have equal rights among all citizens regardless of race, language or religion.
If Singapore were to be a communist state, we would have social instability since the race who is the majority would definitely have the upper hand over others in deciding a leader. This can easily lead to the race with the majority getting more rights as compared to other races, sparking riots and other such violents protests. Our community would be in chaos.
Although it is true that democracy does aid in upholding stability as it pushes for equal rights, the fact is in a democracy the majority always wins, and this sometimes may not be a good thing. Take for example, in America, the supposed "Land of the free", there was the discrimination of blacks. To say that a country where that happens has equality and stability obviously is not true. But why did this happen? The whites in America outnumbered the blacks, hence policies favouring whites would naturally go through via the "majority wins" principle. From this example, we can tell that in a democracy, policies that generally favour the majority may be allowed to be enacted, resulting in inequality, and naturally creating instability, as those whom the policy does not favour will be unhappy, and may resort to violence, such as the 'Black power movement" that followed the civil rights movement, where blacks took to the streets in violent protests.
Furthermore, from a political point of view, democracy may create instability. The presence of elections and the natural human urge for power results in the various political parties fighting for the citizens' votes. Let us take malaysia as an example. The polotical parties there play much politics, with turncoats appearing everywhere. Even after the elections, there are still politics being played, due to some parties being unhappy with the results or trying to gain back power. An example is the recent Anwar sodomy scandal. Anwar's aide who made the sodomy claims was photographed with many prominent BN officials. Another example is Mongolia, where rioting occured after opposition parties accused the ruling party, which had a landslide victory, of fraud. This sort of istability does not happen in dictatorships, where the clamping down of any dissent and the dictator's firm grasp on powerresults in stability, albeit one that is the result of much bloodshed.
As Sheng Yang has said, democracy can also result in various problems, therefore it can be seen that democracy cannot be successful on its own. I feel that in order for democracy to be effective in a society, we need the following:
Acceptance - If the people all from various roots are willing to accept each others' cultures and background as well as skin colour, it is possible to work harmoniously to build a stable society which can be very successful.
Cooperation - Working together is important for anything to succeed. A simple example would be our group projects. We all have to do our part for the project to be as good as it can be, the same goes for a society, everyone has a part to play in making it a stable, with a good economy and good living conditions.
Government - Having a government that is unbiased, and uncorrupted is very important for a society. If a government were to be corrupted, the rich would be able to pay their way out of sticky situations while the poor would probably suffer greatly as a result of the injustice that such a government can cause.
Regarding Sheng Yang's comment, I still stand by my view that democracy creates stability. Sheng Yang stated that the blacks are mistreated in the american community, where they are supposedly the "land of the free". True, the blacks are mistreated. True, the whites "win" because they are the majority. However, is that true democracy? Is that what democray is, just a means for the majority to get what they want? No. If america practiced true democracy, the blacks still would be discriminated against, but they would have equal chances at getting into schools, getting a job etc. If america practiced true democracy, the blacks would not still be in this state, they would have risen to more influencial positions given their ability. Democracy is just about everyone having voting rights, it means that everyone has equal opportunities, to prevent "the majority" from always getting what they want.
However, in america, this is not pracitced. The americans give the blacks a chance to vote. For what? To give them false hope? I feel that they do that for the sake of calling themselves democratic, to take away what little guilt they have about not giving the blacks equal opportunities.
In the end, democracy will create stability if it is not warped by the people. Many people use the term "democratic" freely and carelessly. Some people even use it just to give others the illusion that they are being fair. I hope that this comment will help prevent certain misunderstandings in this blog discussion.
Yes I agree that for democracy to be effective in a state, the 3 criterias that Brandon mentioned has to be present.
However, does the 3 criterias always exist in a democratic society? The answer should obviously be no. As such for democracy to be effective and create stability in a society, it has to be able to create those criterias by itself. Which democracy cannot create. Many democratic societies still suffers from a corrupted government, discrimination among people, and a lack of cooperation and sense of belonging.
Recently I read an article on America trying to promote democracy in the Middle East in order to create peace and stop terrorism there, which seems like a futile and unsucessful campaign. I agree with what the author said: "democracy is a form of government; it is not a ticket to some heavenly kingdom where all evil is vanquised and everyone agrees with us." Indeed democractic society is not a perfect state, just like communism and monarchism. Neither of them are perfect. Democracy is just a type of government where the poeople have power to make desicions for themselves people have equal rights. Althought the people have the right to make desicions for themselves, it does not meant hat the society will be stable. One of the example shengyang gave is very relavant to this. The loophole of the "majority win" voting system of democracy. What if the majority makes a wrong desicion? Democracy is after all just a form of governmance.
However after reading nick eu's post, I must say that democracy does and can create stability in a society, but only to a certain extent. And the fact that most of the developed countries in the world today are running on democracy, and yet the world is still revalently peaceful as compared to the past where dictators ruled can prove this. Many people are also unknowning using democracy to make decisions in their daily lives unknowingly. More revalant to me is how we elect leaders in our school, after suitable candidates have been chosen, we will cast our votes and that will decide who will be the next moniter or prefect in the school. This prevents conflict as everyone's choice and thought is considered. In the world, although voting have its downsides, consider its advantages. If voting does not occur in a dictator ruled country, roits and rebellions would often occur. Such as in the history of China, there has been numerous riots and rebellions, following the overthrowing of one ruler, the country has seldom been united or not at war.
Whether democracy can create stability does not depend on just arguing about it. It depends on the society, the people and the surrounding environment. Monarchism and Communism has also been able to create a stable society in some countries in history. It just depends on how democracy is used.
Another point to add (also regarding sheng yang's post). Regarding the part where Sheng Yang talked about how politics were still in play after the election. Does anyone here honestly think that that is the result of democracy? Would communism have produced a different result? i think not. This kind of things happen not as result of democracy, or communism for that matter. I feel this results from the pride, selfishness, greed and the unwillingness to "lose". All these result from the weakness of man, as do many other problems.
Some people may respond to this by saying then that all problems are cause by man. I agree with that. However, democracy helps prevent many of those problems, unlike other forms of government. Take any democratic society with major problems as an example. Would any of those problems be solved if it was a communist country? Take China, as far as anyone can see, emperors have been overthrown and overthrown many times, because the people was not happy with this "government". Many other problems can be seen from China's example.
Ultimately, Democracy is not perfect, and it will not prevent all problems from arising, but it is the lesser of the few evils, and better than no form of government too. Democracy will not achieve total stability in a society, but relatively speaking, a society is much more stable when there is Democracy.
Erm, my previous comment was made while Cheng Hang was writing his, so I did not see his comment before writing mine, thus i'm not sure it is as relevant, and may seem like a repeat, after reading what Cheng Hang wrote.
In response to Nicholas' comment, I would like to share my thoughts. Yes, it is true that the same could happen in communism, or monarchy. However, we must consider that in either 2 forms of government, there are no multi-party politics. In democracy, partisan politcs results in much conflict, albeit non violent. In authoritarian regimes, the dictators clamp down hard on any dissent, hence creating political stablilty as there are no voices to star a rebellion, or criticise the government. Although whether this is benefical is something very doubtful, it does create stablity, as there are no shakeups in the government, or riots.
I would like to add that politcal stablity may be achived in nonpartisan politics, that is democracy with the element of politcal parties, and the people vote for candidates purely based on thier merits. THis removes the element of divisiveness between parties, as now indivudual candidates compate against a large number of other candidates, reducing the amount of dity politics in play.
I agree with Cheng hang, and believe that ultimately the stability of a society is not determined by how it is governed, nor how it chooses its leaders, but rather what policies are implemented, what actions are taken, what decision the government makes. A communist government can implement policies that support racial harmony, and a democratic society can implement xeno phobic policies detrimental to the social stabilty of a country.
To add on to my previous comment, the effectiveness of a democracy lies in the hands of the people, and thier ability to elect just and competent leaders. An immature socity would vote for leaders that promote welfare policies that could eventually bankrupt the state. A mature socity would vote for leaders with vision who would implement policies ensuring the long term survival of the society while improving the people's standard of living
Through this discussion, I have gathered deeper insights on the issue of democracy, and whether it can create stabiltiy in a society.
The following is how democracy can create stability in a society: 1. A democratic society upholds meritorcracy, which ensures that everyone does their best for the society and for themselves. 2. Citizens of a democratic state have equal rights which will contribute to social stability, as there might be violent protests or roits if otherwise. 3. Democracy provides a fair chance for everyone to speak of their views on political and social issues, which will cause less conflict as this can solve them non-violently.
Yet democracy does have its downsides: 1. The majority may not always be correct. What if the majority makes a wrong decision? That will lead to instability. 2. There may be violent roits or protests if certain groups are not sastified with the results of elections, leading to social instability. 3. There may be distractions, or bribery to distract voters from making their decisions on a political view point.
As to whether democracy would create stability or not like above would actually have to depend on how it is implemented. If used in asia, which has a long history of corruption, most likely money politics would come into play and there may be "buying" of voters and corruption. Yet in Singapore, it allows this multi-racial country to enjoy social stability.
15 comments:
I agree to a large extent.
Democracy allows everyone to have a part to play in decision making, like electing a government. Unlike communism, rewards are given based on merit, thus everyone has to work hard. This contributes to the stability of a society because then everyone works hard and plays their part in society. If not for democracy, people may just slack during their jobs knowing that they will still get their income.
Also, by giving everyone the right to vote for their own government etc, people in the society will feel more attached to their soceity, thus making everyone do their best to contribute to society.
And since everyone does their best for the society, the society will achieve stability.
In a country such as Singapore, i feel that democracy play a major role in upholding stability. As a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, it is important to have equal rights among all citizens regardless of race, language or religion.
If Singapore were to be a communist state, we would have social instability since the race who is the majority would definitely have the upper hand over others in deciding a leader. This can easily lead to the race with the majority getting more rights as compared to other races, sparking riots and other such violents protests. Our community would be in chaos.
Although it is true that democracy does aid in upholding stability as it pushes for equal rights, the fact is in a democracy the majority always wins, and this sometimes may not be a good thing. Take for example, in America, the supposed "Land of the free", there was the discrimination of blacks. To say that a country where that happens has equality and stability obviously is not true. But why did this happen? The whites in America outnumbered the blacks, hence policies favouring whites would naturally go through via the "majority wins" principle. From this example, we can tell that in a democracy, policies that generally favour the majority may be allowed to be enacted, resulting in inequality, and naturally creating instability, as those whom the policy does not favour will be unhappy, and may resort to violence, such as the 'Black power movement" that followed the civil rights movement, where blacks took to the streets in violent protests.
Furthermore, from a political point of view, democracy may create instability. The presence of elections and the natural human urge for power results in the various political parties fighting for the citizens' votes. Let us take malaysia as an example. The polotical parties there play much politics, with turncoats appearing everywhere. Even after the elections, there are still politics being played, due to some parties being unhappy with the results or trying to gain back power. An example is the recent Anwar sodomy scandal. Anwar's aide who made the sodomy claims was photographed with many prominent BN officials. Another example is Mongolia, where rioting occured after opposition parties accused the ruling party, which had a landslide victory, of fraud. This sort of istability does not happen in dictatorships, where the clamping down of any dissent and the dictator's firm grasp on powerresults in stability, albeit one that is the result of much bloodshed.
As Sheng Yang has said, democracy can also result in various problems, therefore it can be seen that democracy cannot be successful on its own. I feel that in order for democracy to be effective in a society, we need the following:
Acceptance - If the people all from various roots are willing to accept each others' cultures and background as well as skin colour, it is possible to work harmoniously to build a stable society which can be very successful.
Cooperation - Working together is important for anything to succeed. A simple example would be our group projects. We all have to do our part for the project to be as good as it can be, the same goes for a society, everyone has a part to play in making it a stable, with a good economy and good living conditions.
Government - Having a government that is unbiased, and uncorrupted is very important for a society. If a government were to be corrupted, the rich would be able to pay their way out of sticky situations while the poor would probably suffer greatly as a result of the injustice that such a government can cause.
sorry the previous comment was mine.
Regarding Sheng Yang's comment, I still stand by my view that democracy creates stability. Sheng Yang stated that the blacks are mistreated in the american community, where they are supposedly the "land of the free". True, the blacks are mistreated. True, the whites "win" because they are the majority. However, is that true democracy? Is that what democray is, just a means for the majority to get what they want? No. If america practiced true democracy, the blacks still would be discriminated against, but they would have equal chances at getting into schools, getting a job etc. If america practiced true democracy, the blacks would not still be in this state, they would have risen to more influencial positions given their ability. Democracy is just about everyone having voting rights, it means that everyone has equal opportunities, to prevent "the majority" from always getting what they want.
However, in america, this is not pracitced. The americans give the blacks a chance to vote. For what? To give them false hope? I feel that they do that for the sake of calling themselves democratic, to take away what little guilt they have about not giving the blacks equal opportunities.
In the end, democracy will create stability if it is not warped by the people. Many people use the term "democratic" freely and carelessly. Some people even use it just to give others the illusion that they are being fair. I hope that this comment will help prevent certain misunderstandings in this blog discussion.
Yes I agree that for democracy to be effective in a state, the 3 criterias that Brandon mentioned has to be present.
However, does the 3 criterias always exist in a democratic society? The answer should obviously be no. As such for democracy to be effective and create stability in a society, it has to be able to create those criterias by itself. Which democracy cannot create. Many democratic societies still suffers from a corrupted government, discrimination among people, and a lack of cooperation and sense of belonging.
Recently I read an article on America trying to promote democracy in the Middle East in order to create peace and stop terrorism there, which seems like a futile and unsucessful campaign.
I agree with what the author said: "democracy is a form of government; it is not a ticket to some heavenly kingdom where all evil is vanquised and everyone agrees with us." Indeed democractic society is not a perfect state, just like communism and monarchism. Neither of them are perfect. Democracy is just a type of government where the poeople have power to make desicions for themselves people have equal rights. Althought the people have the right to make desicions for themselves, it does not meant hat the society will be stable. One of the example shengyang gave is very relavant to this. The loophole of the "majority win" voting system of democracy. What if the majority makes a wrong desicion? Democracy is after all just a form of governmance.
However after reading nick eu's post, I must say that democracy does and can create stability in a society, but only to a certain extent. And the fact that most of the developed countries in the world today are running on democracy, and yet the world is still revalently peaceful as compared to the past where dictators ruled can prove this. Many people are also unknowning using democracy to make decisions in their daily lives unknowingly. More revalant to me is how we elect leaders in our school, after suitable candidates have been chosen, we will cast our votes and that will decide who will be the next moniter or prefect in the school. This prevents conflict as everyone's choice and thought is considered. In the world, although voting have its downsides, consider its advantages. If voting does not occur in a dictator ruled country, roits and rebellions would often occur. Such as in the history of China, there has been numerous riots and rebellions, following the overthrowing of one ruler, the country has seldom been united or not at war.
Whether democracy can create stability does not depend on just arguing about it. It depends on the society, the people and the surrounding environment. Monarchism and Communism has also been able to create a stable society in some countries in history. It just depends on how democracy is used.
Another point to add (also regarding sheng yang's post). Regarding the part where Sheng Yang talked about how politics were still in play after the election. Does anyone here honestly think that that is the result of democracy? Would communism have produced a different result? i think not. This kind of things happen not as result of democracy, or communism for that matter. I feel this results from the pride, selfishness, greed and the unwillingness to "lose". All these result from the weakness of man, as do many other problems.
Some people may respond to this by saying then that all problems are cause by man. I agree with that. However, democracy helps prevent many of those problems, unlike other forms of government. Take any democratic society with major problems as an example. Would any of those problems be solved if it was a communist country? Take China, as far as anyone can see, emperors have been overthrown and overthrown many times, because the people was not happy with this "government". Many other problems can be seen from China's example.
Ultimately, Democracy is not perfect, and it will not prevent all problems from arising, but it is the lesser of the few evils, and better than no form of government too. Democracy will not achieve total stability in a society, but relatively speaking, a society is much more stable when there is Democracy.
Erm, my previous comment was made while Cheng Hang was writing his, so I did not see his comment before writing mine, thus i'm not sure it is as relevant, and may seem like a repeat, after reading what Cheng Hang wrote.
In response to Nicholas' comment, I would like to share my thoughts. Yes, it is true that the same could happen in communism, or monarchy. However, we must consider that in either 2 forms of government, there are no multi-party politics. In democracy, partisan politcs results in much conflict, albeit non violent. In authoritarian regimes, the dictators clamp down hard on any dissent, hence creating political stablilty as there are no voices to star a rebellion, or criticise the government. Although whether this is benefical is something very doubtful, it does create stablity, as there are no shakeups in the government, or riots.
I would like to add that politcal stablity may be achived in nonpartisan politics, that is democracy with the element of politcal parties, and the people vote for candidates purely based on thier merits. THis removes the element of divisiveness between parties, as now indivudual candidates compate against a large number of other candidates, reducing the amount of dity politics in play.
I agree with Cheng hang, and believe that ultimately the stability of a society is not determined by how it is governed, nor how it chooses its leaders, but rather what policies are implemented, what actions are taken, what decision the government makes. A communist government can implement policies that support racial harmony, and a democratic society can implement xeno phobic policies detrimental to the social stabilty of a country.
To add on to my previous comment, the effectiveness of a democracy lies in the hands of the people, and thier ability to elect just and competent leaders. An immature socity would vote for leaders that promote welfare policies that could eventually bankrupt the state. A mature socity would vote for leaders with vision who would implement policies ensuring the long term survival of the society while improving the people's standard of living
Through this discussion, I have gathered deeper insights on the issue of democracy, and whether it can create stabiltiy in a society.
The following is how democracy can create stability in a society:
1. A democratic society upholds meritorcracy, which ensures that everyone does their best for the society and for themselves.
2. Citizens of a democratic state have equal rights which will contribute to social stability, as there might be violent protests or roits if otherwise.
3. Democracy provides a fair chance for everyone to speak of their views on political and social issues, which will cause less conflict as this can solve them non-violently.
Yet democracy does have its downsides:
1. The majority may not always be correct. What if the majority makes a wrong decision? That will lead to instability.
2. There may be violent roits or protests if certain groups are not sastified with the results of elections, leading to social instability.
3. There may be distractions, or bribery to distract voters from making their decisions on a political view point.
As to whether democracy would create stability or not like above would actually have to depend on how it is implemented. If used in asia, which has a long history of corruption, most likely money politics would come into play and there may be "buying" of voters and corruption. Yet in Singapore, it allows this multi-racial country to enjoy social stability.
most interesting, tracing the development of thinking from all 4 of you - active learning here!
Post a Comment