One World, One dream alright, but there is also only one passport. In the article I had posted, it was said that the representatives of the various nations during the Olympic Games were not necessarily from the nations that they represented. Notably, many of the competitors for the table tennis events were born in China before going to the other countries. However, does this issue of nationality really matter? It is after all one world with one common dream.
The first key point that the opposing stand can bring up is concerning a fundamental benefit of the Olympic Games. When one's national team is participating in an Olympic event, one will instinctively feel that sense of national pride and spur the team on with words of encouragement. That in itself promotes national pride. Then, when the country wins a medal at the games, every citizen of the state would feel more patriotic towards the land. Thus, Olympic events can promote national identity. However, when naturalised foreigners represent a country, would the impact be the same in national pride? My answer to that is that for a tiny speck on the map like Singapore, even being represented in the first place is a thing to be proud of. So what if they are foreigners? It only goes to show that they came here because it was a better place for them to live and exhibit their talents and potential; and that's why they represented us, which helped them to show case their talents to the whole world, beside making the country that they adopted to be proud of.
Also, there is the issue of their citizenship. Some say, they might take up citizenship in a new country but their loyalty would only remain with their home country. It is of course, a valid argument. It is the same concept as why the Singapore Government relies more on a homegrown citizen army than on a full time full force mercenary army--in times of economic hardship or when they are unwilling to fight, the latter will simply desert the employers. However this cannot be likened to foreign athletes. In this case, the athletes are not like the mercenary army can potentially be. Not that we were experiencing economic hardship, but they fought a long and hard battle with the top seeds from China and remained true to Singapore all the way. They did not give the match away to China just because they were born there. They fought fair and square, and the better team simply beat the other. Also another rebuttal to the point will be that in a country like Singapore, dual citizenship is not allowed. So the athletes had to take the hard decision to drop the citizenship of their motherland before taking up our citizenship whole-hearted. Since they did that, it only goes to show that these athletes really want to be part of us.
Generally speaking, the world today is border-less. People are going and coming everywhere because they are allowed to do so. This has allowed for rapid globalization. That is the reason Singapore remains alive today. In one generation the population of natives (who are not really natives because their predecessors were immigrants themselves to some once unknown swamp-cum-fishing-village) could halve because of the slumping birth rate, but a constant influx of foreigners should stabilise the population. Therefore by nature of the state, it is alright if it is represented by foreigners. If we ourselves were once immigrants, why target them? At least now we know how the Orang Lauts would have felt in the 1820s!
The Olympics should now shift the focus more towards the individual. In this virtually border-less world, the individual should receive more importance than the nation, because the nation no longer truly represents a collective identity of people. Like I said, if they are going and coming all over the place, then it will be difficult to group a type of people as belonging to one nation. For example, if Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps both came to represent Singapore, it does not necessarily say that Singapore is a sporting powerhouse. So the Olympics should now change the focus to the individual.
Besides, nationality should not be an issue. We are one common family of human beings with a common dream of achieving peace, prosperity and progress. The only true passport we have that reflects of us is not our national identity, but our human existence.
Therefore, I personally, feel that it does not matter who represents which country in the Olympic Games, but what matters is that the athletes are given the chance to up their game, and for many, allowed to fulfill their dreams of competing in the global arena.
PS: On a side note, if we really want true blue Singaporeans in the Olympics, we should put more emphasis on shooting because after all NS has trained thousands of us to shoot with precision over the years.
THE END
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Olympic Passport (article for reference)
The Olympic passport
The number of foreign-born athletes competing in the Games has raised eyebrows. But in a borderless world, why shouldn't sports be just as globalised?
By Tan Dawn Wei, expat eye
This year's Olympic table tennis matches will be remembered as much for some formidable play as a battle amojng the Chinese.
That's the Chinese-Singaporean, Chinese-French, Chinese-Austrian, Chinese-American, Chinese-Spaniard, Chinese-Australian, Chinese- German, Chinese-Polish, Chinese Canadian, Chinese-Korean, Chinese-Hong Konger, Chinese-Luxembourger, Chinese-Dutch, Chinese- Dominican, Chinese-Croatian and Chinese-Congolese.
The oft-bandied phrase, 'the Chinese are everywhere', is nothing if not glaringly apparent at the Beijing table tennis games.
Of the 78 women paddlers at this year's Olympics, 35 are China- born. Only three wear China's red and yellow colours.
Past Olympic Games have borne witness to such ironic scenes before, but quite possibly none more than in the Chinese capital.
And it's not just at the ping-pong table.
When the members of the press descended on Chaoyang Park for what they thought would be a politically charged beach volleyball match between Georgia and Russia after the latter sent tanks into the former's territory, they saw none of that from the Brazilian players representing Georgia.
Then, there were the New Zealand-born triathlete brothers who competed against each other: one, Shane Reed, doing it for his home country, the other, Matt, for the United States.
Armenian wrestler Ara Abrahamian won a bronze medal for Sweden (which he was later stripped of for throwing it on the mat); Jamaican Germaine Mason gave Great Britain a silver and its first high-jump medal since 1996; and Moroccan Rashid Ramzi ran to a gold in the 1,500m race for Bahrain.
Of course, the table tennis trio of Li Jiawei, Wang Yuegu and Feng Tianwei - former Chinese, now Singaporeans - broke this country's dry Olympic medal spell of 48 years with a team silver.
The United States also fielded a brigade of migrants - 36 from 28 countries - this year: among them, Lopez Lomong, the Sudanese-born American flag-bearer at the opening ceremony, plus a South African-born tennis player, a Georgian archer, a Polish kayaker, Chinese table tennis players and a world champion Kenyan distance runner.
All this trading of nationalities has led to much criticism and derision from purists, stakeholders and even the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
It is one thing to find a new home as a conventional migrant, but another to be bought over purely for your athletic talents.
No one raised a stink when Nastia Liukin, a Russian immigrant, won a gold medal in individual all-round gymnastics for the US a week ago.
She had moved to New Orleans when she was 21/2 years old with her family after the Soviet Union broke up and is as American as apple pie.
But Americans have been far less kind to two other of its basketball players who crossed over from the US to Russia.
Becky Hammon and J.R. Holden have had to defend themselves repeatedly from being labelled 'traitors' when they donned Russian colours at this year's Games.
Hammon, who wasn't drafted into the US national team, had said: 'I still love my country - it doesn't really have anything to do with that. I just want to play basketball.'
The Olympics, it seems, are no longer about patriotism, national identity or making your motherland proud.
Instead, it has become what The Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer Jeff Schultz calls 'an exercise in passport free agency'.
Fingers have been wagging in the direction of rich Middle Eastern countries, which have thrown wads of cash at poor African athletes in a bid for national glory.
Former world steeplechase champion Stephen Cherono, who traded his Kenyan jersey for a Qatari one and adopted a new name, Saif Saaeed Shaheen, for a lifetime salary of US$1,000 (S$1,400) a month, is just one of them.
There have been enough cases of Cheronos to make the IOC take action: It ruled in 2002 that athletes must wait three years from receiving their new citizenship papers before they can compete for their adoptive country - unless their home country waives this deadline.
IOC president Jacques Rogge said the committee introduced the rule to prevent athletes from 'changing nationality for purely financial reasons'.
'It is a worrying situation emerging in sport,' he had remarked.
Likewise, the International Table Tennis Federation has also put its foot down. After the Olympics, those over the age of 21 will be banned from pledging allegiance to another country.
Those between 18 and 20 will have to wait seven years before they can make the jump.
Other sports federations are also likely to follow suit.
But there is something to be said about this globalisation of sports.
When the world is increasingly becoming a borderless one, why should the field of sports be any different? When people have traditionally migrated in search of a better life, more equitable opportunities and greater challenges, why can't sportsmen do the same?
Lawyer and economist Ian Ayres argued for flexibility in a New York Times column last Thursday, citing Article 6 in the Olympic Charter which states that the Games are competitions between athletes and not countries.
'Imagine a world where the best athletes are able to compete. This is definitely not the current Olympic system. The country quota system keeps many of the best athletes home,' he wrote.
'Letting athletes choose their national teams is a simple way of fulfilling this powerful idea,' he said of the Olympic Charter.
If not for Singapore's Foreign Sports Talent (FST) scheme, introduced in 1993 to fast-track promising foreign athletes to Singapore citizenship, the Republic's three new Olympic silver medallists would quite likely never have had the opportunity to take part in any Games.
The debate over Singapore's reliance on these imported athletes has been going on for the past decade, and the sports fraternity has reiterated the importance of these achievers to the development of sports here.
Much cynicism still hangs in the air - at coffee shops and on online forums - that Singapore didn't really win at the Olympics since all three paddlers were China-born.
Nowhere else, it seems, do you witness such disenchantment simply because the athletes bringing home the medals aren't native.
Perhaps it is because the table tennis win is Singapore's only one at these Games. Elsewhere, there could be less scrutiny when foreign-born and native athletes both come home with an assortment of medals.
But unlike Hammon, Holden and many others who hold two passports, Singapore's lack of a dual citizenship policy means foreign-born athletes have to give up one for another.
And surely that will qualify them as Singaporeans in more ways than one. Chinese-Singaporeans.
The number of foreign-born athletes competing in the Games has raised eyebrows. But in a borderless world, why shouldn't sports be just as globalised?
By Tan Dawn Wei, expat eye
This year's Olympic table tennis matches will be remembered as much for some formidable play as a battle amojng the Chinese.
That's the Chinese-Singaporean, Chinese-French, Chinese-Austrian, Chinese-American, Chinese-Spaniard, Chinese-Australian, Chinese- German, Chinese-Polish, Chinese Canadian, Chinese-Korean, Chinese-Hong Konger, Chinese-Luxembourger, Chinese-Dutch, Chinese- Dominican, Chinese-Croatian and Chinese-Congolese.
The oft-bandied phrase, 'the Chinese are everywhere', is nothing if not glaringly apparent at the Beijing table tennis games.
Of the 78 women paddlers at this year's Olympics, 35 are China- born. Only three wear China's red and yellow colours.
Past Olympic Games have borne witness to such ironic scenes before, but quite possibly none more than in the Chinese capital.
And it's not just at the ping-pong table.
When the members of the press descended on Chaoyang Park for what they thought would be a politically charged beach volleyball match between Georgia and Russia after the latter sent tanks into the former's territory, they saw none of that from the Brazilian players representing Georgia.
Then, there were the New Zealand-born triathlete brothers who competed against each other: one, Shane Reed, doing it for his home country, the other, Matt, for the United States.
Armenian wrestler Ara Abrahamian won a bronze medal for Sweden (which he was later stripped of for throwing it on the mat); Jamaican Germaine Mason gave Great Britain a silver and its first high-jump medal since 1996; and Moroccan Rashid Ramzi ran to a gold in the 1,500m race for Bahrain.
Of course, the table tennis trio of Li Jiawei, Wang Yuegu and Feng Tianwei - former Chinese, now Singaporeans - broke this country's dry Olympic medal spell of 48 years with a team silver.
The United States also fielded a brigade of migrants - 36 from 28 countries - this year: among them, Lopez Lomong, the Sudanese-born American flag-bearer at the opening ceremony, plus a South African-born tennis player, a Georgian archer, a Polish kayaker, Chinese table tennis players and a world champion Kenyan distance runner.
All this trading of nationalities has led to much criticism and derision from purists, stakeholders and even the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
It is one thing to find a new home as a conventional migrant, but another to be bought over purely for your athletic talents.
No one raised a stink when Nastia Liukin, a Russian immigrant, won a gold medal in individual all-round gymnastics for the US a week ago.
She had moved to New Orleans when she was 21/2 years old with her family after the Soviet Union broke up and is as American as apple pie.
But Americans have been far less kind to two other of its basketball players who crossed over from the US to Russia.
Becky Hammon and J.R. Holden have had to defend themselves repeatedly from being labelled 'traitors' when they donned Russian colours at this year's Games.
Hammon, who wasn't drafted into the US national team, had said: 'I still love my country - it doesn't really have anything to do with that. I just want to play basketball.'
The Olympics, it seems, are no longer about patriotism, national identity or making your motherland proud.
Instead, it has become what The Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer Jeff Schultz calls 'an exercise in passport free agency'.
Fingers have been wagging in the direction of rich Middle Eastern countries, which have thrown wads of cash at poor African athletes in a bid for national glory.
Former world steeplechase champion Stephen Cherono, who traded his Kenyan jersey for a Qatari one and adopted a new name, Saif Saaeed Shaheen, for a lifetime salary of US$1,000 (S$1,400) a month, is just one of them.
There have been enough cases of Cheronos to make the IOC take action: It ruled in 2002 that athletes must wait three years from receiving their new citizenship papers before they can compete for their adoptive country - unless their home country waives this deadline.
IOC president Jacques Rogge said the committee introduced the rule to prevent athletes from 'changing nationality for purely financial reasons'.
'It is a worrying situation emerging in sport,' he had remarked.
Likewise, the International Table Tennis Federation has also put its foot down. After the Olympics, those over the age of 21 will be banned from pledging allegiance to another country.
Those between 18 and 20 will have to wait seven years before they can make the jump.
Other sports federations are also likely to follow suit.
But there is something to be said about this globalisation of sports.
When the world is increasingly becoming a borderless one, why should the field of sports be any different? When people have traditionally migrated in search of a better life, more equitable opportunities and greater challenges, why can't sportsmen do the same?
Lawyer and economist Ian Ayres argued for flexibility in a New York Times column last Thursday, citing Article 6 in the Olympic Charter which states that the Games are competitions between athletes and not countries.
'Imagine a world where the best athletes are able to compete. This is definitely not the current Olympic system. The country quota system keeps many of the best athletes home,' he wrote.
'Letting athletes choose their national teams is a simple way of fulfilling this powerful idea,' he said of the Olympic Charter.
If not for Singapore's Foreign Sports Talent (FST) scheme, introduced in 1993 to fast-track promising foreign athletes to Singapore citizenship, the Republic's three new Olympic silver medallists would quite likely never have had the opportunity to take part in any Games.
The debate over Singapore's reliance on these imported athletes has been going on for the past decade, and the sports fraternity has reiterated the importance of these achievers to the development of sports here.
Much cynicism still hangs in the air - at coffee shops and on online forums - that Singapore didn't really win at the Olympics since all three paddlers were China-born.
Nowhere else, it seems, do you witness such disenchantment simply because the athletes bringing home the medals aren't native.
Perhaps it is because the table tennis win is Singapore's only one at these Games. Elsewhere, there could be less scrutiny when foreign-born and native athletes both come home with an assortment of medals.
But unlike Hammon, Holden and many others who hold two passports, Singapore's lack of a dual citizenship policy means foreign-born athletes have to give up one for another.
And surely that will qualify them as Singaporeans in more ways than one. Chinese-Singaporeans.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Democracy Creates Stability in a Society: English Blog Assignment Term 2
In my opinion, the ability of democracy creating stability in a society depends not on the ideal of democracy itself but more on the way the elected governments implement them and the response they get from the populace. This essay will thus attempt to prove this point.
Stability has three aspects, namely social, economic and political stability. I will thus be using these criteria to judge the stability in a nation.
First, democracy can create stability in a society. The ideal of democracy is that the people have a voice in deciding what they want and majority of such voices decide what ultimately gets done. It also gives opportunity to people to dispel their resentment as it acts as a channel to vent their dissatisfactions. Switzerland, which is one of the world's most stable countries, is a direct democracy where many things other than elections are also decided by public polls. It is the closest existing form to the ideal democracy. Switzerland is renowned for its economic stability in terms of prosperity, growth figures and GDP. There is social stability in the form of peace, and political stability in terms of absence of political struggles and conflicts. It is an ideal example to prove that democracy can bring about stability in a society. Liberal representative democracy is slightly different from direct democracy in that here the representatives elected by the populace will represent them as their voice. In the case of the United States, which uses this form of democracy, there is also economic stability in that it is a world super economy; politically stable because there are no multiparty conflicts since there are only two parties; and social stability because the people there lead a very comfortable life. Here too we see that democracy allows for the society to have stability.
On the contrary, democracy may not create stability in a society. Sri Lanka is a democracy that has been plagued by ethnic conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese. There is little social stability with so many daily skirmishes. There is little political stability because the LTTE and other Tamil activists are always scheming against the Sinhalese government. Because of all the problems, there is also no economic stability because the pandemonium literally makes investors run for their money. One of the causes of the conflict is the elected government itself. From the very beginning, the Sinhalese and Tamils voted for parties of their own ethnicity in the elections. Because the Sinhalese are the majority, the Sinhalese parties always win. This resulted in perennial resentment in the Tamil camp. From this, we see that there is also a loophole in the philosophy of democracy. While it tries to be Utilitarian in nature, just because more people are happy on one side not necessarily mean that the resentful minority can be disregarded. In a situation like this democracy only adds fuel to the fire of instability.
While the ideal of democracy may or may not create stability in a society, conditions may not be suitable to implement democracy at all in some countries. For example, it could not be implemented in China after the fall of the monarchy because of the state of despair at that time. Someone had to come down and make things work, because conflicting opinions could aggravate chaos. Socialism helped to consolidate and lift the society from the depths of the doldrums. India is the largest democracy in the world (population wise) and is one of the few Asian nations that practice it too.
India is a good example to argue on the pros and cons of the democratic system, as it offers sufficient ground to argue either way. While democracy and its companion capitalistic beliefs have jet propelled India into a super economy and given it economic stability, this increased capitalism has widened the income gap at the same time. Thus the socioeconomic status of the bottom half of the society degrades while the upper half blissfully blossoms. This is expected to impact the social cohesiveness and might lead to things getting out of control. Too much freedom/liberty also wreaks havoc in the political scene because there are so many different parties with different ideals, which paralyses the functioning of the government sometimes, and often results in hung decisions. There is thus little political stability.
While the ideal of democracy is same, it works very well in Switzerland and US, but fails miserably in countries like Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland and is in a limbo in countries like India. This only leads to my strong belief that practical implementation of democracy plays a key role on the success or failure of it regardless of where it is implemented. Needless to add, the mindset of the people in the country where it is implemented also plays a key role in it.
Therefore whether or not democracy creates stability in a society is a subjective development and can vary depending on various factors that surround each situation. While ideology sets the direction, the end result depends on how it is implemented and how well it is received and followed. Therefore democracy itself may not create stability in a society, but other factors have to work in its favour for it to succeed. Otherwise, it could lead to some unexpected results.
Stability has three aspects, namely social, economic and political stability. I will thus be using these criteria to judge the stability in a nation.
First, democracy can create stability in a society. The ideal of democracy is that the people have a voice in deciding what they want and majority of such voices decide what ultimately gets done. It also gives opportunity to people to dispel their resentment as it acts as a channel to vent their dissatisfactions. Switzerland, which is one of the world's most stable countries, is a direct democracy where many things other than elections are also decided by public polls. It is the closest existing form to the ideal democracy. Switzerland is renowned for its economic stability in terms of prosperity, growth figures and GDP. There is social stability in the form of peace, and political stability in terms of absence of political struggles and conflicts. It is an ideal example to prove that democracy can bring about stability in a society. Liberal representative democracy is slightly different from direct democracy in that here the representatives elected by the populace will represent them as their voice. In the case of the United States, which uses this form of democracy, there is also economic stability in that it is a world super economy; politically stable because there are no multiparty conflicts since there are only two parties; and social stability because the people there lead a very comfortable life. Here too we see that democracy allows for the society to have stability.
On the contrary, democracy may not create stability in a society. Sri Lanka is a democracy that has been plagued by ethnic conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese. There is little social stability with so many daily skirmishes. There is little political stability because the LTTE and other Tamil activists are always scheming against the Sinhalese government. Because of all the problems, there is also no economic stability because the pandemonium literally makes investors run for their money. One of the causes of the conflict is the elected government itself. From the very beginning, the Sinhalese and Tamils voted for parties of their own ethnicity in the elections. Because the Sinhalese are the majority, the Sinhalese parties always win. This resulted in perennial resentment in the Tamil camp. From this, we see that there is also a loophole in the philosophy of democracy. While it tries to be Utilitarian in nature, just because more people are happy on one side not necessarily mean that the resentful minority can be disregarded. In a situation like this democracy only adds fuel to the fire of instability.
While the ideal of democracy may or may not create stability in a society, conditions may not be suitable to implement democracy at all in some countries. For example, it could not be implemented in China after the fall of the monarchy because of the state of despair at that time. Someone had to come down and make things work, because conflicting opinions could aggravate chaos. Socialism helped to consolidate and lift the society from the depths of the doldrums. India is the largest democracy in the world (population wise) and is one of the few Asian nations that practice it too.
India is a good example to argue on the pros and cons of the democratic system, as it offers sufficient ground to argue either way. While democracy and its companion capitalistic beliefs have jet propelled India into a super economy and given it economic stability, this increased capitalism has widened the income gap at the same time. Thus the socioeconomic status of the bottom half of the society degrades while the upper half blissfully blossoms. This is expected to impact the social cohesiveness and might lead to things getting out of control. Too much freedom/liberty also wreaks havoc in the political scene because there are so many different parties with different ideals, which paralyses the functioning of the government sometimes, and often results in hung decisions. There is thus little political stability.
While the ideal of democracy is same, it works very well in Switzerland and US, but fails miserably in countries like Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland and is in a limbo in countries like India. This only leads to my strong belief that practical implementation of democracy plays a key role on the success or failure of it regardless of where it is implemented. Needless to add, the mindset of the people in the country where it is implemented also plays a key role in it.
Therefore whether or not democracy creates stability in a society is a subjective development and can vary depending on various factors that surround each situation. While ideology sets the direction, the end result depends on how it is implemented and how well it is received and followed. Therefore democracy itself may not create stability in a society, but other factors have to work in its favour for it to succeed. Otherwise, it could lead to some unexpected results.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Summary and Final Conclusion
This post will now attempt to summarise the argument thus far. In the first post, the parameters of this argument were set. For example, stability was defined to have three aspects, social, economic and political stability. The second post provided a point of view in proposition of the statement that democracy creates stability in a society. It mentioned how the concept of how people voting for whatever they wanted, in the ideal direct democracy, could dispell the voter's dissatisfactions. It also stated that this was the very foundation of democracy, and gave the example of Switzerland, which is one of the world's most stable countries. It is famous for its economic stability, social stability in the form of peace, and absence of political struggles. Thus, we can see how democracy can bring about stability in a society.
Next, there was an opposition post. This gave various views on how democracy does not create stability in a society, Because there are still the minority who are dissatisfied. The example used to substantiate it was Sri Lanka. In addition to that, the oppostion post also brought up another point, that the ideology is not the key, but the implementation of it. It could work in Switzerland because it was implemented well. However, as the example was given, it could not be implemented in China after the fall of the monarchy because of the state of despair affairs were at the time. Socialism then lifted it back from the doldrums. Thus, here we can see another view, that democracy does not create stability in a society.
Almost instantly, there was a quick and sharp rebuttal from the proposition: That for the case of Sri Lanka, it was not Democracy at fault, but it was the people, who were not voting for what was right for them. However, the opposition countered just as fast, saying that the people were not at fault. Sinhalese and Tamils voted for parties of their own ethinicity so the majority Sinhalese would naturally get their way, which was a fault of democracy for discounting the minority. Then, there was yet another rebuttal, which added on to the opposition view. It agreed that the Sri Lankan voters were not at fault. In addition to that, it probed the holes in democracy's philosophical ideals.
Next, there was another proposition post, to propose yet another positive viewpoint through liberal representative democracy. It explains how this is slightly different from direct democracy. In addition to that, it also layed down conditions for this democracy to work, in the form of assumptions. These proved to be valid in the case of the United States, which was effectively used as an example to substantiate all the points. It ended off on a note suggesting that while the opposition had a valid point, the proposition had managed to turn that point to the positive sway.
After this, there was another apposition post. The major focus was on India, one of the few Asian nations that practiced completely liberal democracy. The aim of the post was to show how India was a good example of how democracy might not be the best system. It went on to explain how democracy and its companion capitalist beliefs have jet propelled India into a supereconomy, yet at the same time this increased capitalism was widening the income gap and decreasing social stability and too much liberty wreaking havoc in the political scene. It then used this as evidence to highlight the fact that while the assumptions in the previous post were valid for the richer countries like USA and Switzerland, it was inapplicable in poorer countries. The couclusion thereafter was that in addition to the practical implementation of democracy, there is also the public mindset factor, and that both of these could produce positive and negative implications.
This was the last conclusion that was made, as a result of building upon one another's ideas and carefully refining the conclusions to suit more cases. As a result, it is now safe to say that this discussion has reached the following conclusion:-
"Whether or not democracy creates stability in a society can vary in many different societies. Hence, it is not the ideology behing this system that is the key. Instead, it is how the governments implement this ideology practically, and how the population, which includes everyone plus the government, respond to it in terms of mindest. These are the key factors that play a part in determining the success. Therefore Democracy itself cannot create stability in a society, but the two aforementioned factors can either help it do so or not."
This marks the close of this discussion.
Amrish Soundararajan (3), Ho Xian Zheng (10), Low Kah Khang (17), Tay Yi Yan (22)
Class 3F
Next, there was an opposition post. This gave various views on how democracy does not create stability in a society, Because there are still the minority who are dissatisfied. The example used to substantiate it was Sri Lanka. In addition to that, the oppostion post also brought up another point, that the ideology is not the key, but the implementation of it. It could work in Switzerland because it was implemented well. However, as the example was given, it could not be implemented in China after the fall of the monarchy because of the state of despair affairs were at the time. Socialism then lifted it back from the doldrums. Thus, here we can see another view, that democracy does not create stability in a society.
Almost instantly, there was a quick and sharp rebuttal from the proposition: That for the case of Sri Lanka, it was not Democracy at fault, but it was the people, who were not voting for what was right for them. However, the opposition countered just as fast, saying that the people were not at fault. Sinhalese and Tamils voted for parties of their own ethinicity so the majority Sinhalese would naturally get their way, which was a fault of democracy for discounting the minority. Then, there was yet another rebuttal, which added on to the opposition view. It agreed that the Sri Lankan voters were not at fault. In addition to that, it probed the holes in democracy's philosophical ideals.
Next, there was another proposition post, to propose yet another positive viewpoint through liberal representative democracy. It explains how this is slightly different from direct democracy. In addition to that, it also layed down conditions for this democracy to work, in the form of assumptions. These proved to be valid in the case of the United States, which was effectively used as an example to substantiate all the points. It ended off on a note suggesting that while the opposition had a valid point, the proposition had managed to turn that point to the positive sway.
After this, there was another apposition post. The major focus was on India, one of the few Asian nations that practiced completely liberal democracy. The aim of the post was to show how India was a good example of how democracy might not be the best system. It went on to explain how democracy and its companion capitalist beliefs have jet propelled India into a supereconomy, yet at the same time this increased capitalism was widening the income gap and decreasing social stability and too much liberty wreaking havoc in the political scene. It then used this as evidence to highlight the fact that while the assumptions in the previous post were valid for the richer countries like USA and Switzerland, it was inapplicable in poorer countries. The couclusion thereafter was that in addition to the practical implementation of democracy, there is also the public mindset factor, and that both of these could produce positive and negative implications.
This was the last conclusion that was made, as a result of building upon one another's ideas and carefully refining the conclusions to suit more cases. As a result, it is now safe to say that this discussion has reached the following conclusion:-
"Whether or not democracy creates stability in a society can vary in many different societies. Hence, it is not the ideology behing this system that is the key. Instead, it is how the governments implement this ideology practically, and how the population, which includes everyone plus the government, respond to it in terms of mindest. These are the key factors that play a part in determining the success. Therefore Democracy itself cannot create stability in a society, but the two aforementioned factors can either help it do so or not."
This marks the close of this discussion.
Amrish Soundararajan (3), Ho Xian Zheng (10), Low Kah Khang (17), Tay Yi Yan (22)
Class 3F
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Opposition 2: People's Response Also Important In Deciding Ultimate Fate
Having said what I did previously, I am not an extremist of any sorts. So I will attempt to explain both sides of the argument and then prove how democracy does not necessarily bring about stability. This looks like a thesis, but please keep with me.
I know there are two sides to this coin. Thus, to illustrate it, I am going to use a case study. India, the largest democracy in the world is a country of contradictions with many different cultures, languages, faiths and religions. In my opinion, India is a very good example of a nation that displays both sides of the coin.
In terms of economic stability and prosperity, India is gaining a huge ground. It is one of the fastest growing nations in Asia and in the world. It is said to be set to overtake the US as the world superpower, alongside China in about half a century. It has an excellent double-digit growth figures for a few years now. Business enterprises in India are outgrowing and consuming other companies all across the globe to become billion-dollar real MNCs. TATA Group, which includes a steel group, motor company, and a telecommunications company amongst others, recently acquired Jaguar and Landrover from Ford, an US multinational. TATA Motor Co. thus is one of the few companies that has the privilege of making both the cheapest car in the world while also producing some of the most coveted vehicles at the same time. Having said that, I do understand and recognise that India still has to make up on the socio-economic status of the people.
This ties it in nicely with social stability. People now afford sprawling mansions with private swimming pools, a fleet of cars for themselves, and much more. However, the income gap is anything not closing up. The rich get richer while the poor poorer. In many cities, there is an interesting juxtaposition of prime business districts and the shunned slums. High rise flats on one side of the river, straw huts on the other. Just another common sight in the booming cities in India. Low life expectancy, high infant mortality, poor sanitation, and much more can describe the conditions of the lower rungs of this capitalist economy. It is just like the exploding London of the mid-19th century. How can this be stopped? Is the government not doing anything?
It links straight to political instability. On the outside, India has a booming economy, globalization, a huge talent pool, a wide open demographic window, etc.etc. Inside, however, poverty, injustice and corruption run rampant. This is because of political instability. There are many tussles between parties that try to wrestle power from each other, even by force. The Indian Subcontinent, by the nature of its huge landmass, is divided into many states, which are sprawling in themselves. These states are ruled by their own state governments, whose loyalties seldom lie with the central government. It is not very much like the American system, although it was intended to be so.
Some opposition/regional parties have mandates to rule a state, often won illegitimately or through regional grouses. They can and do cause big problems for the central government. An example is the nuclear agreement with the USA. The first stage of the agreement was signed, but when it came to terms and conditions of the next, there was a hung government. Another would be that while one side of the government supported opening up the market for more foreign investment, the other was protectionist. The protectionists feared that the west might exploit them like in the colonial times, and ardently believed that India needed to stand on her own feet. This again incapacitated the government for a long time.
Many a times, politicians take advantage of ignorances/gullibility of the voting populations and get to power to exploit and indulge in self-enrichment. These people would do anything under the sun for the power. In a state election once, the leader of a political party had six corruption charges pending against her—but she still came back with a landslide! Amongst the rural population, it was said that some dared not vote, while some could not be bothered and they lost faith in their ability to change the system.
Hence India, while possessing a booming economy with astronomical growth figures, still has a lot of political and social instability left in it. In countries like India, free democracy simply cannot work because the parties can be rebellious, electorate indifferent, or even both at the same time! A stern hand has to come down to solve growing problems immediately. The huge number of rural, naive people still in the populace makes it unready to make its own decisions. An authoritarian but benevolent government with the right intent has to come along and rectify everything, before returning to democracy.
Therefore I feel that India makes a good study example. It shows how democracy and its capitalist companion ideals can benefit those who participate, and that too much freedom at the same time can prove detrimental. It shows both sides of the coin.
Hence, from the arguments thus far, I feel that a conclusion we can draw would be that whether or not democracy creates stability in a society depends on the way the government carries out its mandate, its ideologies and effectiveness and usefulness to the populace and more than anything else how they perceive and appreciate it. It could be constructive or antagonistic and this will ultimately decide the success of it.
I know there are two sides to this coin. Thus, to illustrate it, I am going to use a case study. India, the largest democracy in the world is a country of contradictions with many different cultures, languages, faiths and religions. In my opinion, India is a very good example of a nation that displays both sides of the coin.
In terms of economic stability and prosperity, India is gaining a huge ground. It is one of the fastest growing nations in Asia and in the world. It is said to be set to overtake the US as the world superpower, alongside China in about half a century. It has an excellent double-digit growth figures for a few years now. Business enterprises in India are outgrowing and consuming other companies all across the globe to become billion-dollar real MNCs. TATA Group, which includes a steel group, motor company, and a telecommunications company amongst others, recently acquired Jaguar and Landrover from Ford, an US multinational. TATA Motor Co. thus is one of the few companies that has the privilege of making both the cheapest car in the world while also producing some of the most coveted vehicles at the same time. Having said that, I do understand and recognise that India still has to make up on the socio-economic status of the people.
This ties it in nicely with social stability. People now afford sprawling mansions with private swimming pools, a fleet of cars for themselves, and much more. However, the income gap is anything not closing up. The rich get richer while the poor poorer. In many cities, there is an interesting juxtaposition of prime business districts and the shunned slums. High rise flats on one side of the river, straw huts on the other. Just another common sight in the booming cities in India. Low life expectancy, high infant mortality, poor sanitation, and much more can describe the conditions of the lower rungs of this capitalist economy. It is just like the exploding London of the mid-19th century. How can this be stopped? Is the government not doing anything?
It links straight to political instability. On the outside, India has a booming economy, globalization, a huge talent pool, a wide open demographic window, etc.etc. Inside, however, poverty, injustice and corruption run rampant. This is because of political instability. There are many tussles between parties that try to wrestle power from each other, even by force. The Indian Subcontinent, by the nature of its huge landmass, is divided into many states, which are sprawling in themselves. These states are ruled by their own state governments, whose loyalties seldom lie with the central government. It is not very much like the American system, although it was intended to be so.
Some opposition/regional parties have mandates to rule a state, often won illegitimately or through regional grouses. They can and do cause big problems for the central government. An example is the nuclear agreement with the USA. The first stage of the agreement was signed, but when it came to terms and conditions of the next, there was a hung government. Another would be that while one side of the government supported opening up the market for more foreign investment, the other was protectionist. The protectionists feared that the west might exploit them like in the colonial times, and ardently believed that India needed to stand on her own feet. This again incapacitated the government for a long time.
Many a times, politicians take advantage of ignorances/gullibility of the voting populations and get to power to exploit and indulge in self-enrichment. These people would do anything under the sun for the power. In a state election once, the leader of a political party had six corruption charges pending against her—but she still came back with a landslide! Amongst the rural population, it was said that some dared not vote, while some could not be bothered and they lost faith in their ability to change the system.
Hence India, while possessing a booming economy with astronomical growth figures, still has a lot of political and social instability left in it. In countries like India, free democracy simply cannot work because the parties can be rebellious, electorate indifferent, or even both at the same time! A stern hand has to come down to solve growing problems immediately. The huge number of rural, naive people still in the populace makes it unready to make its own decisions. An authoritarian but benevolent government with the right intent has to come along and rectify everything, before returning to democracy.
Therefore I feel that India makes a good study example. It shows how democracy and its capitalist companion ideals can benefit those who participate, and that too much freedom at the same time can prove detrimental. It shows both sides of the coin.
Hence, from the arguments thus far, I feel that a conclusion we can draw would be that whether or not democracy creates stability in a society depends on the way the government carries out its mandate, its ideologies and effectiveness and usefulness to the populace and more than anything else how they perceive and appreciate it. It could be constructive or antagonistic and this will ultimately decide the success of it.
Amrish
Proposition 2- Liberal Representative Democracy brings about stability
In my post, I would be explaining what liberal representative democracy is and how it can achieve stability in a country.
Representative democracy is a form of democracy where people vote for representatives who share similar ideals. The representatives form an independent ruling body charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest. Representative democracy is the more popular form of democracy. (I will explain why later) In many representative democracies, representatives are chosen in elections.
In addition to representative democracy, there is liberal democracy, where representatives are elected in free, secret-ballot, multi-party elections. Also, the power of representatives in a liberal democracy is curtailed by a constitution such as an independent judiciary.
I see that liberal representative democracy is able to achieve stability in a country if certain important assumptions are made. The underlying assumption is: All parties strive to bring stability to the country because…
1. The public is wise and able to identify the party who addresses their concerns best, of which, stability is of high priority.
2. There is suitable competition among parties. All parties try to outshine each other through addressing public’s concerns adequately. There is presence of choice for the public to choose the party whose ideals are most accurately represented. Parties are also of suitable influence and funding to ensure fair competition
3. There is a functional judiciary which administers justice and resolves disputes. The judiciary is able to keep the ruling party in check.
Of course these assumptions may seem difficult to meet in real life as they are theoretical. However, I see several countries which have fully functional representative democracy, most notably, the United States.
United States adopts a 2-party system, since the 1790s the country has been run by two major parties, the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republican Party is considered to be more liberal of the two parties and the Democratic Party, more conservative. The differences in ideologies of the parties offer voters a choice. This is unlike Singapore, where voters tend to vote for the PAP simply due to lack of capable opposition. Having one major ruling party hampers the reliability of the democracy. If the one party gets complacent and neglects work, there is no alternative for the people.
In the US, the Supreme Court of the United States acts as the judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President. The justices have indefinite tenure. In the Supreme Court of the United States, justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties. Their infinite appointment and lack of political leaning ensure that their judgment is fair.
The United States show that the implementation of a fully functional liberal representative democracy is possible. Obviously, it is not perfect (complications may arise but I shall not elaborate here) but more than capable of ensuring stability in the country.
Liberal representative democracy can also resolve the problem of conflicting parties. One of the advantages of representative democracy is that the representatives are experts, who are supposedly, able to look beyond self-interests and look at decisions which can benefit the society as a whole and ensure that minority rights and public welfare is upheld. Ideally, a party’s sole aim would be to provide stability in the country and not to play ethnic politics or undermine other parties. If any party tries to undermine another party, the judiciary would have to stop it. Sri Lanka is an example of a country with a dysfunctional judiciary. Once again, this is fully theoretical.
In conclusion, I agree with Kah Khang’s earlier point that the success of democracy depends on its implementation, if the above-mentioned assumptions are all true, democracy is able to create stability. Thus, I also agree with Yiyan’s point that democracy has great potential to create stability; it simply depends on how well it is implemented.
Representative democracy is a form of democracy where people vote for representatives who share similar ideals. The representatives form an independent ruling body charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest. Representative democracy is the more popular form of democracy. (I will explain why later) In many representative democracies, representatives are chosen in elections.
In addition to representative democracy, there is liberal democracy, where representatives are elected in free, secret-ballot, multi-party elections. Also, the power of representatives in a liberal democracy is curtailed by a constitution such as an independent judiciary.
I see that liberal representative democracy is able to achieve stability in a country if certain important assumptions are made. The underlying assumption is: All parties strive to bring stability to the country because…
1. The public is wise and able to identify the party who addresses their concerns best, of which, stability is of high priority.
2. There is suitable competition among parties. All parties try to outshine each other through addressing public’s concerns adequately. There is presence of choice for the public to choose the party whose ideals are most accurately represented. Parties are also of suitable influence and funding to ensure fair competition
3. There is a functional judiciary which administers justice and resolves disputes. The judiciary is able to keep the ruling party in check.
Of course these assumptions may seem difficult to meet in real life as they are theoretical. However, I see several countries which have fully functional representative democracy, most notably, the United States.
United States adopts a 2-party system, since the 1790s the country has been run by two major parties, the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republican Party is considered to be more liberal of the two parties and the Democratic Party, more conservative. The differences in ideologies of the parties offer voters a choice. This is unlike Singapore, where voters tend to vote for the PAP simply due to lack of capable opposition. Having one major ruling party hampers the reliability of the democracy. If the one party gets complacent and neglects work, there is no alternative for the people.
In the US, the Supreme Court of the United States acts as the judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President. The justices have indefinite tenure. In the Supreme Court of the United States, justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties. Their infinite appointment and lack of political leaning ensure that their judgment is fair.
The United States show that the implementation of a fully functional liberal representative democracy is possible. Obviously, it is not perfect (complications may arise but I shall not elaborate here) but more than capable of ensuring stability in the country.
Liberal representative democracy can also resolve the problem of conflicting parties. One of the advantages of representative democracy is that the representatives are experts, who are supposedly, able to look beyond self-interests and look at decisions which can benefit the society as a whole and ensure that minority rights and public welfare is upheld. Ideally, a party’s sole aim would be to provide stability in the country and not to play ethnic politics or undermine other parties. If any party tries to undermine another party, the judiciary would have to stop it. Sri Lanka is an example of a country with a dysfunctional judiciary. Once again, this is fully theoretical.
In conclusion, I agree with Kah Khang’s earlier point that the success of democracy depends on its implementation, if the above-mentioned assumptions are all true, democracy is able to create stability. Thus, I also agree with Yiyan’s point that democracy has great potential to create stability; it simply depends on how well it is implemented.
Rebuttal 3: Ideological Flaws, a philosophical point of view
I agree with Kah Khang in what he is saying. In SL, even though the people voted what they felt was right, the parties were playing racial politics. This meant that the minority Tamils would not have gotten what they wanted becuase the majority sinhalese would have voted for the anti-Tamil pro-Sinhalese party. This does not mean that the people did not vote for what was right for them. I am now going to move on to post my views against the statement. I too support the idea that the stability is not brought about by the ideology of democracy itself, but rather by practical implementations. We will thus see how the ideology of democracy may not be all that good.
My argument is that the statement is not necessarily correct. Stability may have come at the cost of sacrificing the feelings/sentiments/views of the minority who could have been conveniently over ruled using the majority rule. My example is the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. One cause of it is the discriminatory policies against Tamils. It came about because the government supported by the Sinhalese that made up 70% of the population chose to disregard the Tamil minority and continued to get away till the resentment of the suppressed exploded causing all these turbulence! It goes to prove that just because you make a larger group happy by considering only their views does not mean that you can disregard the minorities.
My next point is that when we do what everyone else does, it might not be the right decision. An example comes from a dialogue between Plato and Socrates. Plato told Socrates that everyone thought he was mad, so he should believe that he was mad. The truth though was that Socrates was a brilliant thinker! This is what many commonly term as the bandwagon fallacy. Just becuase it seems that this leader, who in truth is not doing good for the country, is voted for by the majority does not mean that he is the best leader there is. Say there is a referendum concerning an issue. Even if the majority ignorantly believes in an option that would lead to detriment, the ideological democracy would follow that track even if the leaders knew what were the consequences! Things like this could happen, and would uproot the stability in the society, if anything!
Karl Marx, the revolutionary political thinker, was a mastermind behind socialism and many believed in him. But history has proved that his idealogies have failed time and again. The Peoples Republic of China, the largest socialist country still around has now switched over to the capitalistic economic system. Because they have now realised the benefits of capitalism and seeing the general public becoming happier with this system, they have dared to move away from their own belief/faith in communism. However, Marxists simply rebut this accusation by saying that Marx’s exact words stated that this was a possibility that could arise after the contemporary systems have failed and given way to class struggle. Also rather, it is a naturally occurring process, not an artificially induced system forced onto anyone. Democracy does its best to be Utilitarian but it has holes in it. Big holes that can lead to class struggle (Case in point: Sri Lanka) and if aggravated, conflict. It happened in Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, and even the United States before the Civil Rights Act. If resentment goes out of hand, people will come up with a kind of socialism that will equalize all to solve the problems. Thus, I have further substantiated that democracy may not necessarily create stability in a society, while another hypothetical ideal, which could have better ideals could take over.
Amrish
My argument is that the statement is not necessarily correct. Stability may have come at the cost of sacrificing the feelings/sentiments/views of the minority who could have been conveniently over ruled using the majority rule. My example is the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. One cause of it is the discriminatory policies against Tamils. It came about because the government supported by the Sinhalese that made up 70% of the population chose to disregard the Tamil minority and continued to get away till the resentment of the suppressed exploded causing all these turbulence! It goes to prove that just because you make a larger group happy by considering only their views does not mean that you can disregard the minorities.
My next point is that when we do what everyone else does, it might not be the right decision. An example comes from a dialogue between Plato and Socrates. Plato told Socrates that everyone thought he was mad, so he should believe that he was mad. The truth though was that Socrates was a brilliant thinker! This is what many commonly term as the bandwagon fallacy. Just becuase it seems that this leader, who in truth is not doing good for the country, is voted for by the majority does not mean that he is the best leader there is. Say there is a referendum concerning an issue. Even if the majority ignorantly believes in an option that would lead to detriment, the ideological democracy would follow that track even if the leaders knew what were the consequences! Things like this could happen, and would uproot the stability in the society, if anything!
Karl Marx, the revolutionary political thinker, was a mastermind behind socialism and many believed in him. But history has proved that his idealogies have failed time and again. The Peoples Republic of China, the largest socialist country still around has now switched over to the capitalistic economic system. Because they have now realised the benefits of capitalism and seeing the general public becoming happier with this system, they have dared to move away from their own belief/faith in communism. However, Marxists simply rebut this accusation by saying that Marx’s exact words stated that this was a possibility that could arise after the contemporary systems have failed and given way to class struggle. Also rather, it is a naturally occurring process, not an artificially induced system forced onto anyone. Democracy does its best to be Utilitarian but it has holes in it. Big holes that can lead to class struggle (Case in point: Sri Lanka) and if aggravated, conflict. It happened in Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, and even the United States before the Civil Rights Act. If resentment goes out of hand, people will come up with a kind of socialism that will equalize all to solve the problems. Thus, I have further substantiated that democracy may not necessarily create stability in a society, while another hypothetical ideal, which could have better ideals could take over.
Amrish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
