Stability in a society is made up of social stability, economic stability and political stability. However, i feel that social stability is more important that economic stability. Because without social stability, the people would not be able to function well as a group, and likely give rise to hazardous situations due to conflicts. Political stability is of slightly lower priority and importance compared to social, but more compared to economic. As it is in a Democratic society, the views and actions of the people influence the government much more than the government influences them.
The advantage that democracy provides is that the people deciding for themselves a system that they are going to live by. So if they are unsatified by their standards of living they have mostly themselves to blame, and can even change the government to their liking. This way, the community would be able to resolve conflicts with their leaders peacefully. However other forms of government where the leaders have the most power disagreements will lead to worse things until one party loses power or authority, or until they give in.
Another important aspect in "ideal" democracy is that citizens all have equal rights and oppotunities and this brings about peace between the different religous groups, organizations and racial communities. For example in Singapore this is applied and conflicts between the people are mostly ethical.
Speaking practically, it is almost impossible to achieve a perfectly stable society. However democracy brings about harmony and creates an environment where the government and people can fully concentrate on bringing the country forward. So i feel that if a democratic country is in an unstable state, it is only because they haven't found the best conditions yet, and just being obstructed by certain problems, and are on the way to achieving stability.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Democracy and stability: Counter-example
To start off, I will first agree with Tak Wei’s definition of stability, where a country which has achieved stability is one which society’s social, economic, and political aspects are not threatened or weakened by the various acts of democracy, which Bao Ju has identified in the previous post.
It is hard to decide on a stand as to whether democracy can create and maintain the above mentioned ‘stability’, as stability itself is mainly brought about by the people of the society and their opinions on certain policies. However, I generally agree that democracy can indeed create stability in a society, but to different extents in various nations.
As the case about the Tsar has been brought up earlier, I shall not further dwell into it. We are obviously able to identify with the socio-political instability in Russia caused by the Tsar. Further elaborating about the point on Singapore, we Singaporeans do not actually make the decisions or vote for the policies directly, but instead, we cast our vote for the appropriate party which we think is most able to express our views to the entire country, or share the common beliefs as to what we want our country to achieve. As such, we are actually electing a political party to indirectly make decisions on our behalf, instead of individually balloting about every single policy to be implemented. We can see the importance of general elections, as the Singaporean government makes them compulsory for Singapore citizens aged 21 and above.
Instead of furthering the discussion about how democracy can cause stability, we should also touch on the opposing side.
We would also have to consider the fact that democracy is only a familiar term to those who are citizens of the state. What about those who are denied citizenship? An example of this would be Sri Lanka, where citizenship rights (includes voting!) are only awarded to those who lived in Sri Lanka since 1964 or their descendents. It is obvious that the government is restricting certain groups of people from participating in so-called “democratic” elections, due to certain reasons. Socio-political instability can surface as a result of unbalanced “democracy”, where the cause is the inability of some people to be included in elections. However, the problems are not surfacing from the principles of democracy itself, but rather the way in which democracy is implemented in the country. To one who is denied citizenship to a country, there would probably be no difference between a communist government and a government which practices democracy but refuses to give voting rights to certain people. Democracy is flawed in a way, as there is no one defined way in which the form of government named democracy must be carried out and can be easily manipulated.
It is hard to decide on a stand as to whether democracy can create and maintain the above mentioned ‘stability’, as stability itself is mainly brought about by the people of the society and their opinions on certain policies. However, I generally agree that democracy can indeed create stability in a society, but to different extents in various nations.
As the case about the Tsar has been brought up earlier, I shall not further dwell into it. We are obviously able to identify with the socio-political instability in Russia caused by the Tsar. Further elaborating about the point on Singapore, we Singaporeans do not actually make the decisions or vote for the policies directly, but instead, we cast our vote for the appropriate party which we think is most able to express our views to the entire country, or share the common beliefs as to what we want our country to achieve. As such, we are actually electing a political party to indirectly make decisions on our behalf, instead of individually balloting about every single policy to be implemented. We can see the importance of general elections, as the Singaporean government makes them compulsory for Singapore citizens aged 21 and above.
Instead of furthering the discussion about how democracy can cause stability, we should also touch on the opposing side.
We would also have to consider the fact that democracy is only a familiar term to those who are citizens of the state. What about those who are denied citizenship? An example of this would be Sri Lanka, where citizenship rights (includes voting!) are only awarded to those who lived in Sri Lanka since 1964 or their descendents. It is obvious that the government is restricting certain groups of people from participating in so-called “democratic” elections, due to certain reasons. Socio-political instability can surface as a result of unbalanced “democracy”, where the cause is the inability of some people to be included in elections. However, the problems are not surfacing from the principles of democracy itself, but rather the way in which democracy is implemented in the country. To one who is denied citizenship to a country, there would probably be no difference between a communist government and a government which practices democracy but refuses to give voting rights to certain people. Democracy is flawed in a way, as there is no one defined way in which the form of government named democracy must be carried out and can be easily manipulated.
Does democracy stabilize a society?
Good evening gentlemen, sorry for my late post, I was having trouble connecting to the internet.
A stable society is one which is capable of handling both ends of the spectrum that is human behavior. Many examples of stable societies in today’s world define themselves as democratic or incorporating democratic elements at the very least. Two examples of such countries would be America and China. America is considered by many to be a prime example of democracy where the citizens elect their own leaders and they play an active role in shaping the country’s future.
China on the other hand, though considered by many to be a communist state, incorporates elements of socialism, communism and democracy as well, while staying on the road to become a future global superpower. Thus, democracy is not the only means of creating stability in a society but is capable of producing stability.
However, not all democracies consist of stable societies. India for example, though being a democracy, has a very unstable society, especially in the state of TamilNadu, where even though elections are held, the vast majority of citizens there are uneducated and are mainly villagers and as a result, they end up not understanding the process of the elections properly and are hoodwinked by a certain candidate who may even bribe them to vote for him. This results in a society that’s going nowhere, where the same politician is elected again and again and nothing happens. Therefore, the presence of democracy does not necessarily ensure stability in a society. One criteria that is usually fulfilled for stable democratic societies is widespread education where most of the individuals are educated and are able to make calculated, and mature decisions when voting for a leader.
From my point of view, I agree with the statement to a small extent as my teammate Tak Wei implied, democracies allow the people to influence the laws of the society. Therefore, the people in a sense are governing themselves which provides for stability.
Although, in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong it is not essentially democracy that has stabilized the society but rather “sound economic policies and high quality education” that has propelled them to .their current economic status which is an underlying factor in the stability present in the two societies.
A stable society is one which is capable of handling both ends of the spectrum that is human behavior. Many examples of stable societies in today’s world define themselves as democratic or incorporating democratic elements at the very least. Two examples of such countries would be America and China. America is considered by many to be a prime example of democracy where the citizens elect their own leaders and they play an active role in shaping the country’s future.
China on the other hand, though considered by many to be a communist state, incorporates elements of socialism, communism and democracy as well, while staying on the road to become a future global superpower. Thus, democracy is not the only means of creating stability in a society but is capable of producing stability.
However, not all democracies consist of stable societies. India for example, though being a democracy, has a very unstable society, especially in the state of TamilNadu, where even though elections are held, the vast majority of citizens there are uneducated and are mainly villagers and as a result, they end up not understanding the process of the elections properly and are hoodwinked by a certain candidate who may even bribe them to vote for him. This results in a society that’s going nowhere, where the same politician is elected again and again and nothing happens. Therefore, the presence of democracy does not necessarily ensure stability in a society. One criteria that is usually fulfilled for stable democratic societies is widespread education where most of the individuals are educated and are able to make calculated, and mature decisions when voting for a leader.
From my point of view, I agree with the statement to a small extent as my teammate Tak Wei implied, democracies allow the people to influence the laws of the society. Therefore, the people in a sense are governing themselves which provides for stability.
Although, in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong it is not essentially democracy that has stabilized the society but rather “sound economic policies and high quality education” that has propelled them to .their current economic status which is an underlying factor in the stability present in the two societies.
my definition of democracy
To fix ideas, the term “democracy,” as I will use it in this article, refers very generally to a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which I mean decisions that are made for groups and that are binding on all the members of the group. Second, this definition means to cover a lot of different kinds of groups that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight to it. It is quite compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to an assembly where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct participation of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.
Monday, May 12, 2008
SS Democracy - An Introduction and Guidelines
OK, hi guys, this first post is just to give you guys a quick summary we need to have for the blog discussion. Your first post should have:
1. A definition of stability in a society
2. Your stand on the motion, 'Democracy creates stability in a society'
3. Your reasoning on why you have such a stand.
Please provide examples to support each reason too, so that we can refer to it.
After your first post, you can send out more posts to contribute more points, or to clarify each other's points, so that everyone can do a good essay!
Tak Wei
1. A definition of stability in a society
2. Your stand on the motion, 'Democracy creates stability in a society'
3. Your reasoning on why you have such a stand.
Please provide examples to support each reason too, so that we can refer to it.
After your first post, you can send out more posts to contribute more points, or to clarify each other's points, so that everyone can do a good essay!
Tak Wei
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)