Commentary on "Democracy creates stability in a society"

Democracy is a form of government that ensures the freedom of the people. It utilizes elections to allow the citizens to choose for themselves, who their leaders are, leaders who represent the ideals that the voters desire for their country.

Thus, in many countries, a government system is implemented in aim of achieving stability within the society. Communist systems like those seen in the Soviet Republic, China and North Korea, were used so as to maintain order as the state government has enough power to control the people. With order within the nation, things can run smoothly, thereby ensuring that the countries economy remains stable.

In democracy however, it is not as simple as “the government says this, you must do this.” Democracy is a system which goes along the idea of liberalism, where people have the right to choose for themselves, but still following under the laws set down by the country’s legislature. However, it is not anarchy where people can do as they wish, as there are little to no laws to control them. Although both are similar, democracy is the one where the state has a certain amount of power; to the extent to be equals if not more powerful than the citizens it governs.

Democracy has 3 main arch-types: Direct democracy, Representative democracy, and Authoritarian democracy.

Direct democracy can be seen in Switzerland, where the Swiss have a say in everything, be it putting up a new dustbin right around the street corner or even a new law. In this case, the power is tilted towards the people, and the government is the one that implements the new ideas into effect. This is a dangerous form of democracy, though it does allow people to be happy with what they want, it has some drawbacks as well. If a poor policy is implemented, it might cause some future instability within the nation, this is especially so when the people are unsure of the consequences of their choice. Also, another downside is that as democracy compares the amount of votes against one another, there will always be a winner and a loser in the community. Unless the voting is unanimous, there will always be people who will not get what they want. This can be seen as a form of oppression of the minority, who then are unable to get what they want.

Representative democracy is more common than direct democracy; this can be seen in Singapore schools where monitors are elected to represent their class, as a figure of authority. They will usually go through a rally where they try to raise support to their cause, and will eventually get to a voting. During this voting, voters choose the potential candidates to represent the ideas they want; their chosen representatives than go into the Cabinet of the country. Therefore, by using one person to represent a group of people, efficiency can be attained as in a government vote, only one person representing their community will be voting, as such, it reduces the time taken to count votes and the policy can be implemented quickly. Although this does detach a substantial amount of power from the people to their representative, it does make a quick alternative of counting 60 votes compared to a few million votes. As with all things in life, there are drawbacks with representative democracy. It is difficult for a single person to represent the ideas of a large community, and the representative will definitely find it impossible to do everything that the community wishes them to do. And sometimes, they might not do it in the way their community wants them to do it. As with many forms of democracy, there will always be a minority in the voting. And as such, the minority might get unhappy and riot. This can create a lot of social conflict, and can influence heavily the stability of the country as a whole.

Another drawback of such democracy can be seen in the United States, when George W. Bush decided to fight a war against terrorists in Iraq. He was voted president by the people, and he screwed the people along with his country’s economy. By fighting a war, a hefty amount of money is required to fund such an effort. Back in the USA, people work to bring revenue into the country, when this money which can be put into the economic sector as investments, it instead goes to fund the war effort. This petty war coincided with the rapid decrease in the American currency, which dropped from 1.65SGD to the current 1.35SGD; that is a drop of 30 cents, which amounts to a lot in large quantities. This economic instability can be brought about when the elected member is an inexperienced politician, and his decisions might influence the stability of the country heavily.

In authoritarian democracy, things are slightly simpler, the people choose their representatives to control the country. This is useful in countries with limited resources such as manpower, and need excessively close scrutinizing to ensure the country progresses. In such a country, stability and order is maintained by a group of people who represent the government. This government has to be experienced and well-versed in ensuring that the country does not fall of the ledge in its progress.

As can be seen from the above examples, democracy is a double-edged sword, wielding it against anything that can create instability in the country it governs; except that the sword seems to be pointing towards you. Therefore, I think that it is safe to conclude that democracy can create stability in a society, provided that the citizens of the country are capable of choosing well enough for themselves.

952 words