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