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