Democracy is the system of rule by the people. It is derived by from the Greek δημοκρατία ([demokratia] (help·info)), "popular government" which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens. In the modern sense it is currently understood and most frequently used, the rule by majority. However, if not restricted by a special system of check and balances, that rule can easily deteriorate and ceases to be a democracy and becomes something else, such as an aristocracy (government by the best, aristos) or an oligarchy (government by the few, oligos).
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.
"Majority rule" is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly—representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority". Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy.
No universally accepted definition of 'democracy' exists. However, there are two principles that any definition of democracy is required to have, and that is: first that all members of the society are having equal access to power and second all members to have the freedom to live their lives as they want to. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy.
Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significant contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[11] Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Okay, guys (Keng Siang and Sean if you figure out how to get to my blog, guy if not). This is about our Social Studies Assignment on Democracy.
I feel that democracy opens a platform for stability in a country. One reason is because it allows the government to understand what the people think of the method in which the country is being ruled; the government can then proceed to take necessary steps to correct an improve on thei governing if the people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. An aim of this is to forge better state-citizen relations, and with that, when the people that are being governed feel that their voice is heard and steps are being taken by the government to listen to this people and do something about it, the people will be unlikely to riot or strike in an attempt to overthrow the government. Democracy is capable of (not saying it will definitely be able to) achieving social stability in a country.
Democracy here refers to either "authoritarian" democracy, where the state has more power, or Swiss democracy. where the people have more power.
Stability in this case can be seen in different areas, such as social stability, economic stability and political stability.
Democracy can lead to stability in some cases. Take the authoritatian democracy for example. Since there is 1 dominant party, the ruling party is not likely to change - more effort would be put into developing the country rather than competing with other parties in elections and so on. This will lead to political stability.
The presence of 1 dominant party also means that the economic policies of that country would not change very drastically, as there is only 1 goal. Compare that to a country with several competitive parties - Each party may have a different mindset on each policy. Frequent changes will lead to economic instability as the policies change once every few years - multinational companies and foreign investors would be affected by the hassle. (multi-party systems will be discussed later)
1 dominant party also means support by the majority of the countrymen. This leads to social stability as there would not be riots or clashes in between the population over the support of a party. Imagine a quarell that may escalate to a fight, even a riot that might split the country (each part supports a different party, not a separation like Northen Ireland.). a dominant party would ensure a common mindset (or at least, the majority), leading to social stability.
The other form of democracy that Davin mentioned, the Swiss democracy, also called direct democracy, is where the citizens themselves choose everything. They truly become their own masters, though they do have a government to represent them, the people have as much, if not more, power than their government, such means that they can vote for everything the government might decide on, instead of them voting only when its absolutely necessary or never get the chance to vote on the government's decision at all.
Because of this balance of power between the citizen-state where the people gets a large amount of power, the people are capable of making their own choices an influencing the outcome of a voting on a bill/law and ultimately affect the future of the country.
However, as the state does not hold the majority of power, but the people, the freedom that is imposed is ultimate. Meaning that the people are free to do as they wish if there are no laws to govern them in that particular aspect, and if they so wish to, they are able to turn down any passing of laws that will restrict their actions. Although it is unlikely that a majority of the population of a country are as such.
This form of freedom is the most desirable by all, as it does not chain the actions of the people that are governed by such a political system; and can have plenty of benefits to improve the social and political stability of the nation, but has severe repercussions if the people do not use their power of freedom wisely.
As the state does not have much power, if the citizens get out of hand, the government will not be able to do anything about it. I would conclude from all this that a direct democracy is a risky from of democracy, since there is no one to ensure the stability of the country if something wrong happens except for the people themselves. And in big countries, that will be a problem as people might have contrasting ideas, and might create a mild conflict among the people.
On the other hand, an extent of liberty is important to ensure that the citizens have their right to freedom and not feel like they ar being totally controlled by a higher power such as a government or dictator.
In addition to Chevy's (shinn) point, Economic stability is affected by Swiss democracy as well.
If we assume that they do vote on economic policies as well, it might be risky for the country. Some people may not be able to see far reaching consequences of implementing an economic policy due to their education (lack of education)- They sill have to vote on it. This may lead to instability if a wrong policy is implemented.
Here is one drawback of democracy, explained by Mr. Koh in class.
(adding to chevy's point) For representative democracy, the majority may discriminate against the minority. even though there are laws to protect them, the majority may still overturn them,
FOr example, There is a community of 100 people. one of them is their leader and acts to implement laws that are existent. If we were to have ultimate democracy, the 98 of them could decide to drown the remaining one, and the leader will not be able to do anything. even if there is a law saying not to discriminate against him, the 98 people could easiky vote for the rule to be removed.
Another problem with democracy that was gone through in class today by Mr. Koh, is that the possibility of electing corrupt ministers or one that does not share the same political view as a country,such as a dictator, into the government.
As the government is voted in by the citizens, the only time the individuals need to hide their corrupt-ness is during the rallies when they strive to win the support of the people. When they are eventually voted into the government, they are free to do as they please.
The consequences of this are severe, as the corrupt/different minister will not run the state as the country's political ideology is.
A corrupt governement will seek ways to benefit themselves only, and might not bother with the impact of their actions on the citizens. Also, in order to prolong their hold on the power, the government can completely change the political structure of the nation such that there are no elections, granting them the power for the rest of the time as long as this does not change. Such a situation might cause people to be unhappy with their government and create social unrest among the citizenry, driving them to riot. The resulting violence will disrupt the stability of the country, economically (revenue cut because people don't want to work) and politically (people not pleased with government, government might be toppled with a rebellion).
This brings about a necessary criteria in the people of a country that wishes to utilise democracy. This was mentioned briefly in one of Davin's previous posts; the people need to be well-educated, they need to be able to see for themselves any implications they might have in the future should they choose to vote an individual into the government. This is one neccessity should the country have stability if it uses democracry as its political ideal.
Another way corruption is brought about by democracy is during the election process. Parties are originally supposed to hold rallies to convince the people to vote for them. However, some other parties may resort to more underhand tactics in order to win the race. One of these measures taken by the parties is bribery; to put it in a more politically correct and familiar term, it is also known as vote-buying. Some parties, after holding their rallies, feel that not enough people support them and their position is at risk. They then resort to offering a monetary incentive to the voters in exchange for a vote (hence vote-buying). Although the people do not want to choose them originally because of various reasons (not addressing problems, incapable, etc.) the money allures them and temporarily “blinds” them. However after the elections they realise it is too late. They live in poverty as a result of neglect – this leads to instability in the area. The corruption on the government’s side has been explained by Chevy in the previous post.
Democracy can also lead to instability despite the lack of corruption. Some political parties resort to gerrymandering (redrawing of certain political boundaries) when they cannot assure themselves a certain win in a state / constituency. This leads to instability in the “transferred” town as different states/constituencies have different people governing them, resulting in complications when there are differing policies in the 2 states/constituencies.
Also, most of this gerrymandering is done without the consultation of the people, just discussion amongst the politicians involved. Ideally, they should hold some sort of referendum for the residents to decide – but if they do they will be revealing their lack of support in the state or their lack of confidence in securing a win in the state.
This leads the politicians to decide amongst themselves without asking for the residents’ opinion, even though they were elected for the purpose of representing the residents’ viewpoints in the government. The residents may grow unhappy due to certain changes that takes place after "relocation" to another constituency. Also they may feel discontented with the fact that the decision was made without their consultation. This may lead so social unrest, affecting stability
In addition to Davin's post about gerrymandering in countries with a democracy.
Because in democractic states, the power is delocalised, by political boundaries seperating different areas run by a delocalised power.
When gerrymandering occurs, the people living in a particular hub might undergo a change in their respective governing power. In larger countries such as the USA, where the delocalised powers control a large group of people and the delocalised powers might have contrasting views on a ceratin topic, gerrymandering can cause some confusion among the people. As the clash of viewpoints might lead to things being done in a different way. Thus, gerrymandering might cause social instability in a nation where delocalised power is practised.
Compared to dictatorship where the power is localised in a central government ruling over the entire country; the people are always ruled under the same government and laws. As such, the people will not experience any shifts in the way things are done, reducing the chance of confusion among the people to near zero.
To me, democracy is a process where the people get to vote for what they want. There are varieties of how it is carried out but basically, in the words of lennon john, power to the people. However, after reading the above comments from both of you guys, it is obviously not as simple as I had thought it to be. Since young, I had this concept where the government would just listen to feedback and complains to the people and improving what is wrong and enforcing on what’s right. I know now that it isn’t as simple as I imagined. Before I get into the discussion, I would like to clarify my stand on the issue 'Democracy creates stability in a society' let me first touch on why should democracy creates stability. Well, democracy really gives the people the freedom to decide who they want as their government. In ideal conditions, democracy a should ctizens to vote without fear or persecution and everyone has their own freedom of choice. This will create a stable society as problems are constantly being raised by the people and addressed by the government. In the case of an authoritarian democracy as davin mentioned, there is stability as the state does not undergo major changes frequently. For the ruling party, it will have the support of the majority as that is the only way they could have gotten to such a position. Therefore, it is unlikely that social unrest exists in the society as the people are more supportive of the ruling party. The people are the ones who know their situation better than any government official and they will be able to raise the appropriate issues that need to be addressed. On the other hand, democracy can create instability. davin wrote that "1 dominant party also means support by the majority of the countrymen." Even so, what becomes of the minority that are not represented. In the case of sri lanka, nursing such unhappiness can have disasterous effects which will lead to instability. Furthermore, some may agree that an “authoritarian” democracy is not true democracy as the people are not given enough choices and freedom. In a country with no dominant ruling parties, stability may be difficult to achieve. The frequent changes might result in economic instability such as inflation if not managed properly. Also, with much competition around, the government parties may place too much focus on winning the next election that they neglect the needs of the people. Some may even resort to underhand methods like bribery and threats to gain votes. Power to the people may not always be a good thing. The educated, though they may know what is going on and know what to do may not have the numbers to back them up. Without numbers, it is difficult to cause change. Even though the people know what they need, they do not know how to go about doing it and may vote for the wrong direction that the government is to take. If the scholars view is treated by as the same importance as a commoner, it would result in the wrong decisions being made therefore resulting in stability. Lastly, no matter how much the people vote, the government is still the one who makes the final decisions, in most countries. If the government does not make good decisions, no matter how many times the people raise the issue, instability will be caused. For example, economic instability can be caused when the government spends national funds on the wrong places resulting in inflation. I agree with davin 100 people example. It is true that democracy is not perfect and that is why some give up on voting. Without their votes, the government in power is not really fully representative of the people. This will also result the people nursing grudges against the ruling party and this is not good for any country. -sean
Now, having looked at a few of the pros and cons of democracy, I think that we should start on examining cases studies and see whether democracy creating stability in a country is not just theoretical, but applies practically as well.
The first case study to be examine shall be the 'land of the free', the United States of America (USA for short). The US was a pioneering country in promoting liberalism as a politcal ideal, which later became the basis for democracy to develop on.
k let me start off by examining how countries that do not practice democracy lose out in terms of stability in the country as compared to countries which do. Collapsed states such as the former soviet union and Yugoslavia have tended to be authoritarian. Even though they were once super powers, they eventually fell apart because their intolerant rulers failed to build consensus for political and economic liberalization. Now, what I am saying here is that this probability can be reduced through democracy, because the leaders are morally obliged to improve the lives of the voters and have to be accountable to them. Through this obligation, they are pushed to help the citizens and are dis encouraged to fail them or do things that are disadvantageous for the people which will cause them to be unhappy and thus not voting for the leader. As discussed earlier, the role of the leader, or ruler is essential, because of the great power held by him or her. The power is like a gun, one that in the hands of a good person can help the people but if fallen in the hands of someone bad, can put the people through unimaginable suffering.That is why it is important to have something to keep the leader in check and this can be done through democracy, where more power is given to the state.
I would like to make an add on to one of Davin's comment, just because 99 person want one person to die, it doesn't mean that the person should die, this is the problem with democracy,because the more is distributed to everyone, the majority always wins. Another problem with democracy as mentioned above is that not everyone is able to fully understand how a political party truly works-what it's goals and interests are, in fact, most of the people don't, but the problem is, through democracy a huge amount of power is given to them! These people would most probably give their votes to the party or candidate which rally impresses them the most. As we all know, a lot of parties, candidates,like to make impressive rallies, making promises, giving incentives and so on, but in the end when in power, they would probably only carry out the acts that grant them the most self benefits, working towards their personal interests...
Now I will attempt to use case studies to show the limitations of democracy. Take a look at the case of Sri Lanka, the voting rights of the tamils are taken away and you can see how this is an attempt by the Sinhalese(note that once again, they are the majority)to prevent the tamils from being part of the government. They are afraid that if the tamils come to power, the many policies that are largely favorable to them may be erased. The policies, in the first place are already unfair and in addition, because of the Sinhalese being the majority,they are able to keep these policies by using their advantage and voting the unfair people into power. This in turn, will cause the Tamils to protest leading to a destabilization effect in the country. People mostly vote for the party that will bring them the most benefits and this can tear a country apart inside out, especially if the country has different ethnic groups, religious groups, or groups that have different beliefs, like that of Ireland between the catholics and the protestants...
Now, for another case study. The United States of America. As i had mentioned earlier, the USA are a strong leader in democracy, having been one of the first few to implement democracy. How has it then, with many years of experience in democracy, influenced the stability within the entire continent?
Being democratic, the power is delocalised into several states, with each being led by a mini government who takes care of affairs within the area they are in charge of. As such, there is an increased efficiency in running the seperated parts instead of one entire piece of land and people. By doing so, problems within the country can be easily rectified by the mini-government, therefore allowing an increase in social stability when the people are happy with the efficiency of their government.
However, the state's power being delocalised might also result in stability being shaken. This can be seen in the USA case study during the 1960s involving the Civil Rights Act regarding conflict. The White House had implemented a law which granted the afro-americans more rights than their southern counterparts. When news of this reached the southern white community, they were infuriated at the sheer thought of it. They had been treating their fellow dark-skinned counterparts as less than humans for awhile, and this drove them to further their discrimination against the black community. This caused a social instability problem with the blacks as they received more abuse than they already had. This is one of the double-edge swords that democracy can bring with it.
In terms of economy, democracy has been shown to provide a boost and a decrease as well in stability.
I'll look at the instability of the economy of the United States caused by democracy. Refering back to the problem mentioned earlier in the discussion, about democracy voting in poor leaders, we can take a look at infamous example George W. Bush. Having staged war efforts against terrorists in Iraq, the United States faced turmoil as plenty of their revenue was probably going to fund the miltary advancement in Iraq. This revenue does not proceed to the economy, but instead to elsewhere, thus with no input into the economy, there is no output either. This is exemplified by the recent sharp drop in the American Dollar, from a whopping 1USD to 1.65SGD to the current rate of 1.35SGD to 1USD.
Now talking about the majority always winning in a democratic state, I would like to touch on another limitation of democracy. In democracy , although the power of the leader/ruler is undermined, it may not always be a good thing. When we say that the power of the leader is undermined is good, we are assuming that the decision the leader is making is not beneficial for the people and thus the people are there to keep the leader in check. However, we have to consider the scenario in which the leader is making a decision, that although in short term might not benefit the people, but in the long run, will be beneficial to the country. In this case, most people, because of their lack of insight in politics,might just see the decision as one that is not good be cause it does not benefit the country in the short term. The majority of the people, who are not able to see pass the short term benefits, will thus prevent the people from making that decision. So as you can see again, democracy might not be able to help move the country in the right direction, towards prosperity and stability because people tend to make decisions that they deem are beneficial to themselves, normally merely short term benefits. And through this, we can question the purpose of the leader if he does not even have the power to make hard decisions like that of what I've mentioned earlier. The state will merely just be moved by different people's point of views and might even be torn apart because of that...
18 comments:
Democracy is the system of rule by the people. It is derived by from the Greek δημοκρατία ([demokratia] (help·info)), "popular government" which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens. In the modern sense it is currently understood and most frequently used, the rule by majority. However, if not restricted by a special system of check and balances, that rule can easily deteriorate and ceases to be a democracy and becomes something else, such as an aristocracy (government by the best, aristos) or an oligarchy (government by the few, oligos).
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.
"Majority rule" is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly—representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority". Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy.
No universally accepted definition of 'democracy' exists. However, there are two principles that any definition of democracy is required to have, and that is: first that all members of the society are having equal access to power and second all members to have the freedom to live their lives as they want to. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy.
Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significant contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[11] Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Okay, guys (Keng Siang and Sean if you figure out how to get to my blog, guy if not). This is about our Social Studies Assignment on Democracy.
I feel that democracy opens a platform for stability in a country. One reason is because it allows the government to understand what the people think of the method in which the country is being ruled; the government can then proceed to take necessary steps to correct an improve on thei governing if the people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. An aim of this is to forge better state-citizen relations, and with that, when the people that are being governed feel that their voice is heard and steps are being taken by the government to listen to this people and do something about it, the people will be unlikely to riot or strike in an attempt to overthrow the government. Democracy is capable of (not saying it will definitely be able to) achieving social stability in a country.
Hmm... Just a few points to start off.
Democracy here refers to either "authoritarian" democracy, where the state has more power, or Swiss democracy. where the people have more power.
Stability in this case can be seen in different areas, such as social stability, economic stability and political stability.
Democracy can lead to stability in some cases. Take the authoritatian democracy for example. Since there is 1 dominant party, the ruling party is not likely to change - more effort would be put into developing the country rather than competing with other parties in elections and so on. This will lead to political stability.
The presence of 1 dominant party also means that the economic policies of that country would not change very drastically, as there is only 1 goal. Compare that to a country with several competitive parties - Each party may have a different mindset on each policy. Frequent changes will lead to economic instability as the policies change once every few years - multinational companies and foreign investors would be affected by the hassle. (multi-party systems will be discussed later)
1 dominant party also means support by the majority of the countrymen. This leads to social stability as there would not be riots or clashes in between the population over the support of a party. Imagine a quarell that may escalate to a fight, even a riot that might split the country (each part supports a different party, not a separation like Northen Ireland.). a dominant party would ensure a common mindset (or at least, the majority), leading to social stability.
I apologize for the lack of continuity between the 1st and the 2nd posts as I started typing my comment before the first comment was posted up.
The other form of democracy that Davin mentioned, the Swiss democracy, also called direct democracy, is where the citizens themselves choose everything. They truly become their own masters, though they do have a government to represent them, the people have as much, if not more, power than their government, such means that they can vote for everything the government might decide on, instead of them voting only when its absolutely necessary or never get the chance to vote on the government's decision at all.
Because of this balance of power between the citizen-state where the people gets a large amount of power, the people are capable of making their own choices an influencing the outcome of a voting on a bill/law and ultimately affect the future of the country.
However, as the state does not hold the majority of power, but the people, the freedom that is imposed is ultimate. Meaning that the people are free to do as they wish if there are no laws to govern them in that particular aspect, and if they so wish to, they are able to turn down any passing of laws that will restrict their actions. Although it is unlikely that a majority of the population of a country are as such.
This form of freedom is the most desirable by all, as it does not chain the actions of the people that are governed by such a political system; and can have plenty of benefits to improve the social and political stability of the nation, but has severe repercussions if the people do not use their power of freedom wisely.
As the state does not have much power, if the citizens get out of hand, the government will not be able to do anything about it. I would conclude from all this that a direct democracy is a risky from of democracy, since there is no one to ensure the stability of the country if something wrong happens except for the people themselves. And in big countries, that will be a problem as people might have contrasting ideas, and might create a mild conflict among the people.
On the other hand, an extent of liberty is important to ensure that the citizens have their right to freedom and not feel like they ar being totally controlled by a higher power such as a government or dictator.
In addition to Chevy's (shinn) point, Economic stability is affected by Swiss democracy as well.
If we assume that they do vote on economic policies as well, it might be risky for the country. Some people may not be able to see far reaching consequences of implementing an economic policy due to their education (lack of education)- They sill have to vote on it. This may lead to instability if a wrong policy is implemented.
Here is one drawback of democracy, explained by Mr. Koh in class.
(adding to chevy's point)
For representative democracy, the majority may discriminate against the minority. even though there are laws to protect them, the majority may still overturn them,
FOr example, There is a community of 100 people. one of them is their leader and acts to implement laws that are existent. If we were to have ultimate democracy, the 98 of them could decide to drown the remaining one, and the leader will not be able to do anything. even if there is a law saying not to discriminate against him, the 98 people could easiky vote for the rule to be removed.
Another problem with democracy that was gone through in class today by Mr. Koh, is that the possibility of electing corrupt ministers or one that does not share the same political view as a country,such as a dictator, into the government.
As the government is voted in by the citizens, the only time the individuals need to hide their corrupt-ness is during the rallies when they strive to win the support of the people. When they are eventually voted into the government, they are free to do as they please.
The consequences of this are severe, as the corrupt/different minister will not run the state as the country's political ideology is.
A corrupt governement will seek ways to benefit themselves only, and might not bother with the impact of their actions on the citizens. Also, in order to prolong their hold on the power, the government can completely change the political structure of the nation such that there are no elections, granting them the power for the rest of the time as long as this does not change. Such a situation might cause people to be unhappy with their government and create social unrest among the citizenry, driving them to riot. The resulting violence will disrupt the stability of the country, economically (revenue cut because people don't want to work) and politically (people not pleased with government, government might be toppled with a rebellion).
This brings about a necessary criteria in the people of a country that wishes to utilise democracy. This was mentioned briefly in one of Davin's previous posts; the people need to be well-educated, they need to be able to see for themselves any implications they might have in the future should they choose to vote an individual into the government. This is one neccessity should the country have stability if it uses democracry as its political ideal.
Another way corruption is brought about by democracy is during the election process. Parties are originally supposed to hold rallies to convince the people to vote for them. However, some other parties may resort to more underhand tactics in order to win the race. One of these measures taken by the parties is bribery; to put it in a more politically correct and familiar term, it is also known as vote-buying. Some parties, after holding their rallies, feel that not enough people support them and their position is at risk. They then resort to offering a monetary incentive to the voters in exchange for a vote (hence vote-buying). Although the people do not want to choose them originally because of various reasons (not addressing problems, incapable, etc.) the money allures them and temporarily “blinds” them. However after the elections they realise it is too late. They live in poverty as a result of neglect – this leads to instability in the area. The corruption on the government’s side has been explained by Chevy in the previous post.
Democracy can also lead to instability despite the lack of corruption. Some political parties resort to gerrymandering (redrawing of certain political boundaries) when they cannot assure themselves a certain win in a state / constituency. This leads to instability in the “transferred” town as different states/constituencies have different people governing them, resulting in complications when there are differing policies in the 2 states/constituencies.
Also, most of this gerrymandering is done without the consultation of the people, just discussion amongst the politicians involved. Ideally, they should hold some sort of referendum for the residents to decide – but if they do they will be revealing their lack of support in the state or their lack of confidence in securing a win in the state.
This leads the politicians to decide amongst themselves without asking for the residents’ opinion, even though they were elected for the purpose of representing the residents’ viewpoints in the government. The residents may grow unhappy due to certain changes that takes place after "relocation" to another constituency. Also they may feel discontented with the fact that the decision was made without their consultation. This may lead so social unrest, affecting stability
In addition to Davin's post about gerrymandering in countries with a democracy.
Because in democractic states, the power is delocalised, by political boundaries seperating different areas run by a delocalised power.
When gerrymandering occurs, the people living in a particular hub might undergo a change in their respective governing power. In larger countries such as the USA, where the delocalised powers control a large group of people and the delocalised powers might have contrasting views on a ceratin topic, gerrymandering can cause some confusion among the people. As the clash of viewpoints might lead to things being done in a different way. Thus, gerrymandering might cause social instability in a nation where delocalised power is practised.
Compared to dictatorship where the power is localised in a central government ruling over the entire country; the people are always ruled under the same government and laws. As such, the people will not experience any shifts in the way things are done, reducing the chance of confusion among the people to near zero.
To me, democracy is a process where the people get to vote for what they want. There are varieties of how it is carried out but basically, in the words of lennon john, power to the people. However, after reading the above comments from both of you guys, it is obviously not as simple as I had thought it to be. Since young, I had this concept where the government would just listen to feedback and complains to the people and improving what is wrong and enforcing on what’s right. I know now that it isn’t as simple as I imagined. Before I get into the discussion, I would like to clarify my stand on the issue 'Democracy creates stability in a society' let me first touch on why should democracy creates stability. Well, democracy really gives the people the freedom to decide who they want as their government. In ideal conditions, democracy a should ctizens to vote without fear or persecution and everyone has their own freedom of choice. This will create a stable society as problems are constantly being raised by the people and addressed by the government. In the case of an authoritarian democracy as davin mentioned, there is stability as the state does not undergo major changes frequently. For the ruling party, it will have the support of the majority as that is the only way they could have gotten to such a position. Therefore, it is unlikely that social unrest exists in the society as the people are more supportive of the ruling party. The people are the ones who know their situation better than any government official and they will be able to raise the appropriate issues that need to be addressed.
On the other hand, democracy can create instability. davin wrote that "1 dominant party also means support by the majority of the countrymen." Even so, what becomes of the minority that are not represented. In the case of sri lanka, nursing such unhappiness can have disasterous effects which will lead to instability. Furthermore, some may agree that an “authoritarian” democracy is not true democracy as the people are not given enough choices and freedom. In a country with no dominant ruling parties, stability may be difficult to achieve. The frequent changes might result in economic instability such as inflation if not managed properly. Also, with much competition around, the government parties may place too much focus on winning the next election that they neglect the needs of the people. Some may even resort to underhand methods like bribery and threats to gain votes. Power to the people may not always be a good thing. The educated, though they may know what is going on and know what to do may not have the numbers to back them up. Without numbers, it is difficult to cause change. Even though the people know what they need, they do not know how to go about doing it and may vote for the wrong direction that the government is to take. If the scholars view is treated by as the same importance as a commoner, it would result in the wrong decisions being made therefore resulting in stability. Lastly, no matter how much the people vote, the government is still the one who makes the final decisions, in most countries. If the government does not make good decisions, no matter how many times the people raise the issue, instability will be caused. For example, economic instability can be caused when the government spends national funds on the wrong places resulting in inflation.
I agree with davin 100 people example. It is true that democracy is not perfect and that is why some give up on voting. Without their votes, the government in power is not really fully representative of the people. This will also result the people nursing grudges against the ruling party and this is not good for any country.
-sean
Now, having looked at a few of the pros and cons of democracy, I think that we should start on examining cases studies and see whether democracy creating stability in a country is not just theoretical, but applies practically as well.
The first case study to be examine shall be the 'land of the free', the United States of America (USA for short). The US was a pioneering country in promoting liberalism as a politcal ideal, which later became the basis for democracy to develop on.
k let me start off by examining how countries that do not practice democracy lose out in terms of stability in the country as compared to countries which do. Collapsed states such as the former soviet union and Yugoslavia have tended to be authoritarian. Even though they were once super powers, they eventually fell apart because their intolerant rulers failed to build consensus for political and economic liberalization. Now, what I am saying here is that this probability can be reduced through democracy, because the leaders are morally obliged to improve the lives of the voters and have to be accountable to them. Through this obligation, they are pushed to help the citizens and are dis encouraged
to fail them or do things that are disadvantageous for the people which will cause them to be unhappy and thus not voting for the leader.
As discussed earlier, the role of the leader, or ruler is essential, because of the great power held by him or her. The power is like a gun, one that in the hands of a good person can help the people but if fallen in the hands of someone bad, can put the people through unimaginable suffering.That is why it is important to have something to keep the leader in check and this can be done through democracy, where more power is given to the state.
I think you mean more power is given to the people. They keep the leader in check by voting them in or out during the elections.
I would like to make an add on to one of Davin's comment, just because 99 person want one person to die, it doesn't mean that the person should die, this is the problem with democracy,because the more is distributed to everyone, the majority always wins. Another problem with democracy as mentioned above is that not everyone is able to fully understand how a political party truly works-what it's goals and interests are, in fact, most of the people don't, but the problem is, through democracy a huge amount of power is given to them! These people would most probably give their votes to the party or candidate which rally impresses them the most. As we all know, a lot of parties, candidates,like to make impressive rallies, making promises, giving incentives and so on, but in the end when in power, they would probably only carry out the acts that grant them the most self benefits, working towards their personal interests...
Now I will attempt to use case studies to show the limitations of democracy. Take a look at the case of Sri Lanka, the voting rights of the tamils are taken away and you can see how this is an attempt by the Sinhalese(note that once again, they are the majority)to prevent the tamils from being part of the government. They are afraid that if the tamils come to power, the many policies that are largely favorable to them may be erased. The policies, in the first place are already unfair and in addition, because of the Sinhalese being the majority,they are able to keep these policies by using their advantage and voting the unfair people into power. This in turn, will cause the Tamils to protest leading to a destabilization effect in the country.
People mostly vote for the party that will bring them the most benefits and this can tear a country apart inside out, especially if the country has different ethnic groups, religious groups, or groups that have different beliefs, like that of Ireland between the catholics and the protestants...
Now, for another case study. The United States of America. As i had mentioned earlier, the USA are a strong leader in democracy, having been one of the first few to implement democracy. How has it then, with many years of experience in democracy, influenced the stability within the entire continent?
Being democratic, the power is delocalised into several states, with each being led by a mini government who takes care of affairs within the area they are in charge of. As such, there is an increased efficiency in running the seperated parts instead of one entire piece of land and people. By doing so, problems within the country can be easily rectified by the mini-government, therefore allowing an increase in social stability when the people are happy with the efficiency of their government.
However, the state's power being delocalised might also result in stability being shaken. This can be seen in the USA case study during the 1960s involving the Civil Rights Act regarding conflict. The White House had implemented a law which granted the afro-americans more rights than their southern counterparts. When news of this reached the southern white community, they were infuriated at the sheer thought of it. They had been treating their fellow dark-skinned counterparts as less than humans for awhile, and this drove them to further their discrimination against the black community. This caused a social instability problem with the blacks as they received more abuse than they already had. This is one of the double-edge swords that democracy can bring with it.
In terms of economy, democracy has been shown to provide a boost and a decrease as well in stability.
I'll look at the instability of the economy of the United States caused by democracy. Refering back to the problem mentioned earlier in the discussion, about democracy voting in poor leaders, we can take a look at infamous example George W. Bush. Having staged war efforts against terrorists in Iraq, the United States faced turmoil as plenty of their revenue was probably going to fund the miltary advancement in Iraq. This revenue does not proceed to the economy, but instead to elsewhere, thus with no input into the economy, there is no output either. This is exemplified by the recent sharp drop in the American Dollar, from a whopping 1USD to 1.65SGD to the current rate of 1.35SGD to 1USD.
Now talking about the majority always winning in a democratic state, I would like to touch on another limitation of democracy. In democracy , although the power of the leader/ruler is undermined, it may not always be a good thing. When we say that the power of the leader is undermined is good, we are assuming that the decision the leader is making is not beneficial for the people and thus the people are there to keep the leader in check. However, we have to consider the scenario in which the leader is making a decision, that although in short term might not benefit the people, but in the long run, will be beneficial to the country. In this case, most people, because of their lack of insight in politics,might just see the decision as one that is not good be cause it does not benefit the country in the short term. The majority of the people, who are not able to see pass the short term benefits, will thus prevent the people from making that decision. So as you can see again, democracy might not be able to help move the country in the right direction, towards prosperity and stability because people tend to make decisions that they deem are beneficial to themselves, normally merely short term benefits. And through this, we can question the purpose of the leader if he does not even have the power to make hard decisions like that of what I've mentioned earlier. The state will merely just be moved by different people's point of views and might even be torn apart because of that...
Post a Comment