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.
Friday, May 30, 2008
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
Monday, May 19, 2008
Rebuttal: Between the devil and the deep blue sea
Rebuttal to Rebuttal to Opposition 1
Kah Khang
In the last rebuttal, it was mentioned that stability was not brought because the people are not voting best for themselves, which is the underlying assumption in a democratic political system. However, I would like to point out that, in a society with conflicting parties, each focusing on a different collective group of people and seeking to undermine the other, any vote to either party would risk harming and undermining another group of people. To put it simply, what may be best for one may not be best for another. Under these circumstances, there would be no choice that one can make, whose party would not seek to undermine a group of people. Using the example of Sri Lanka, if either party won, they would seek to undermine the group which the other party would represent. Therefore, either way, it would not be able to avoid the social instability that would be brought, whatever the results may be. Therefore, we can see that democracy may fail to resolve conflicts in a society, under circumstances where a society is divided into groups of people who share no common identity but rather a hatred towards one another.
Kah Khang
In the last rebuttal, it was mentioned that stability was not brought because the people are not voting best for themselves, which is the underlying assumption in a democratic political system. However, I would like to point out that, in a society with conflicting parties, each focusing on a different collective group of people and seeking to undermine the other, any vote to either party would risk harming and undermining another group of people. To put it simply, what may be best for one may not be best for another. Under these circumstances, there would be no choice that one can make, whose party would not seek to undermine a group of people. Using the example of Sri Lanka, if either party won, they would seek to undermine the group which the other party would represent. Therefore, either way, it would not be able to avoid the social instability that would be brought, whatever the results may be. Therefore, we can see that democracy may fail to resolve conflicts in a society, under circumstances where a society is divided into groups of people who share no common identity but rather a hatred towards one another.
Rebuttal: As good as the voters
Rebuttal to Opposition 1
Yi Yan
While I agree that practical implementation does affect whether democracy creates stability, it is more likely that in such unstable democracies, the instability comes from the fact that the people are not voting for what is best for themselves, which is what a democratic political system would assume. After all, isn’t a democracy only as good as its people? That is a point I would concede.
In the case of Sri Lanka, we see that the Sinhalese, by voting in a discriminatory government, are not voting for what is best for themselves. By voting for such a government who discriminates against the Tamils, they are causing the Tamils to be angry and dissatisfied. We are familiar with what happened next – riots and general social turmoil. Because the Sinhalese were influenced by racial politics and voted badly, their choices brought about social instability, which could have been avoided if they had voted for a better government.
George Bernard Shaw famously claimed that, “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” Stability can only come about if the citizens vote properly, and what I am arguing for is the fact that democracy has the potential to bring about stability provided that the people vote wisely.
Yi Yan
While I agree that practical implementation does affect whether democracy creates stability, it is more likely that in such unstable democracies, the instability comes from the fact that the people are not voting for what is best for themselves, which is what a democratic political system would assume. After all, isn’t a democracy only as good as its people? That is a point I would concede.
In the case of Sri Lanka, we see that the Sinhalese, by voting in a discriminatory government, are not voting for what is best for themselves. By voting for such a government who discriminates against the Tamils, they are causing the Tamils to be angry and dissatisfied. We are familiar with what happened next – riots and general social turmoil. Because the Sinhalese were influenced by racial politics and voted badly, their choices brought about social instability, which could have been avoided if they had voted for a better government.
George Bernard Shaw famously claimed that, “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” Stability can only come about if the citizens vote properly, and what I am arguing for is the fact that democracy has the potential to bring about stability provided that the people vote wisely.
Opposition 1: Stability is caused not by democracy as an ideology, rather by practical implementations of it.
Opposition Post 1
Kah Khang
I would like to make an opposition to the statement that democracy creates stability in a society. The proposition has mentioned that democracy, as opposed to other ideologies, would satisfy most of the people’s needs by allowing people to vote and choose the leaders to form a government, thus resolving conflicts of interest. Democracy would also allow the people to have a larger say in their own country.
However, I would like to argue that stability is not caused by democracy as an ideology, but rather by practical implementations of it, under circumstances.
Democracy is about using democratic values and processes to achieve goals, which implies intellectual and political choice. However, this ideology of democracy, even when adhered to strictly, will still not be able to resolve the conflict, and might even aggravate it.
This is the case for Sri Lanka. When the British government ended its colonial rule in Sri Lanka, democracy was implemented in order to elect a government. However, the pro-Sinhalese party played discriminatory politics, and because of them being the majority in the country, the party eventually prevailed. What resulted was a series of discriminatory policies, aimed at crippling the Tamils, such as the Sinhala-only policy. From the example, it can be concluded that democracy, when implemented unfairly, may tend to overlook the interests of the minority, and therefore may not be able to bring stability.
Another case would be that of China.
After the Sino-Japanese and Sino-French war, China became nothing but remains of an empire fragmented and crushed under pressure from especially Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia. After Qing imperial rule had been overthrown, no powerful central authority was established for decades. It was not until when the Communist Party came to power in 1949, that China started to be reunited, under one rule. However, this came at a price. Under the communist regime, the government enforced one single way of living and thinking for the entire Chinese people.
This was extremely crucial to reunite China, and restore peace in the country. Under these circumstances, democracy would not work. This was because under the different mindsets and thinking of the people, democracy would not be implemented that efficiently as opposed to totalitarianism. They knew that they needed a stern hand to come down hard on the people, and to be able to establish policies that would serve to unite the people’s mindsets and serve as a common identity, which would serve as a foundation stone to build upon for stability in all areas, including social, political and economic stability in the country.
Therefore, stability in a society is not caused by democracy as an ideology, but rather by practical implementations of it.
Kah Khang
I would like to make an opposition to the statement that democracy creates stability in a society. The proposition has mentioned that democracy, as opposed to other ideologies, would satisfy most of the people’s needs by allowing people to vote and choose the leaders to form a government, thus resolving conflicts of interest. Democracy would also allow the people to have a larger say in their own country.
However, I would like to argue that stability is not caused by democracy as an ideology, but rather by practical implementations of it, under circumstances.
Democracy is about using democratic values and processes to achieve goals, which implies intellectual and political choice. However, this ideology of democracy, even when adhered to strictly, will still not be able to resolve the conflict, and might even aggravate it.
This is the case for Sri Lanka. When the British government ended its colonial rule in Sri Lanka, democracy was implemented in order to elect a government. However, the pro-Sinhalese party played discriminatory politics, and because of them being the majority in the country, the party eventually prevailed. What resulted was a series of discriminatory policies, aimed at crippling the Tamils, such as the Sinhala-only policy. From the example, it can be concluded that democracy, when implemented unfairly, may tend to overlook the interests of the minority, and therefore may not be able to bring stability.
Another case would be that of China.
After the Sino-Japanese and Sino-French war, China became nothing but remains of an empire fragmented and crushed under pressure from especially Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia. After Qing imperial rule had been overthrown, no powerful central authority was established for decades. It was not until when the Communist Party came to power in 1949, that China started to be reunited, under one rule. However, this came at a price. Under the communist regime, the government enforced one single way of living and thinking for the entire Chinese people.
This was extremely crucial to reunite China, and restore peace in the country. Under these circumstances, democracy would not work. This was because under the different mindsets and thinking of the people, democracy would not be implemented that efficiently as opposed to totalitarianism. They knew that they needed a stern hand to come down hard on the people, and to be able to establish policies that would serve to unite the people’s mindsets and serve as a common identity, which would serve as a foundation stone to build upon for stability in all areas, including social, political and economic stability in the country.
Therefore, stability in a society is not caused by democracy as an ideology, but rather by practical implementations of it.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Proposition: Direct Democracy brings stability
Proposition Post 1
Yi Yan
I believe that democracy does indeed bring stability. To prove my point, I shall be restricting myself to one type of democracy - direct democracy.
In political science, democracy can be said to offer the maximum amount of individual social liberty, as opposed to totalitarianism.
Modern direct democracy is characterized by three pillars: Initiative, Referandum and Recall. Together, these pillars are the foundation for which sovereignty of all citizens who choose to vote is built upon. With direct democracy, citizens can vote for their views and if their view is shared by the majority, it is implemented. We shall see how this helps to bring social and political stability.
Social instability comes from dissatisfaction – if citizens get to vote to attempt to satisfy their needs, there will be less dissatisfaction because the majority will be appeased and therefore social stability will ensue. For example, if there is dissatisfaction with the current constitution, initiatives by citizens can be started, which when signed by a certain minimum number of people, can force a public vote on an issue. Furthermore, there is a former protocol of voting for resolving conflicts of interest, and such conflicts can be resolved simply by calling for a referendum.
There will also be political stability in a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, officials are voted in by citizens and can be recalled, as contrasted with a dictatorship, where an individual holds absolute power. In such a way, bad politicians/officers who may cause instability politically can simply be recalled. This can be contrasted to a dictatorship; a dictator cannot be taken from his position of power by the people. Furthermore, the presence of multiparty politics allows a balance of power on the political scene. The officials/politicians who in the eyes of the people, serve best, can be voted in. For example, in Switzerland, the centre of political decisions is nearer to the individual. The federal government has little influence and has authority only in matters of foreign affairs and defence. The Swiss cantons legislate on matters of education, police, criminal justice, immigration, etc. Many decisions are even made at the municipal level. This allows the Swiss to have a larger say in their own country, and keeps them happy.
From this, it can be concluded that democracy does bring stability.
Yi Yan
I believe that democracy does indeed bring stability. To prove my point, I shall be restricting myself to one type of democracy - direct democracy.
In political science, democracy can be said to offer the maximum amount of individual social liberty, as opposed to totalitarianism.
Modern direct democracy is characterized by three pillars: Initiative, Referandum and Recall. Together, these pillars are the foundation for which sovereignty of all citizens who choose to vote is built upon. With direct democracy, citizens can vote for their views and if their view is shared by the majority, it is implemented. We shall see how this helps to bring social and political stability.
Social instability comes from dissatisfaction – if citizens get to vote to attempt to satisfy their needs, there will be less dissatisfaction because the majority will be appeased and therefore social stability will ensue. For example, if there is dissatisfaction with the current constitution, initiatives by citizens can be started, which when signed by a certain minimum number of people, can force a public vote on an issue. Furthermore, there is a former protocol of voting for resolving conflicts of interest, and such conflicts can be resolved simply by calling for a referendum.
There will also be political stability in a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, officials are voted in by citizens and can be recalled, as contrasted with a dictatorship, where an individual holds absolute power. In such a way, bad politicians/officers who may cause instability politically can simply be recalled. This can be contrasted to a dictatorship; a dictator cannot be taken from his position of power by the people. Furthermore, the presence of multiparty politics allows a balance of power on the political scene. The officials/politicians who in the eyes of the people, serve best, can be voted in. For example, in Switzerland, the centre of political decisions is nearer to the individual. The federal government has little influence and has authority only in matters of foreign affairs and defence. The Swiss cantons legislate on matters of education, police, criminal justice, immigration, etc. Many decisions are even made at the municipal level. This allows the Swiss to have a larger say in their own country, and keeps them happy.
From this, it can be concluded that democracy does bring stability.
Monday, May 12, 2008
SS and English Assignment On Democracy (post 1)
Hello and welcome to this blog. Once again, here is another assignment that I have been tasked to do. I am going to host a discussion on democracy and will cover areas that include the pros and cons of this system. The statement that the discussion will revolve around is as follows:
"Democracy creates stability in a society".
This discussion will involve the thoughts and voices of the following students: Low Kah Khang, Ho Xian Zheng, Tay Yi Yan and myself, Amrish.
Now we shall move on to the discussion.
Since this is the first post, I shall do what a good introduction of any discussion would do--define the motion and set things straight. First of all, the political system or ideology we are looking at is democracy, where the citizens of the state exercise their right to vote for their preferred leader, or to voice out their opinions on any issues (freedom of speech).
The next key word that warrants a definition is "stability". What exactly, do we mean by stability? Since the answer to this question can indeed be very subjective, I will attempt to set out the criteria for stability for this discussion.
Stability can be split into three predominant aspects, namely the social, political, and economic stability. Social stability simply means peace and prosperity brought about in the community. This could be in terms of welfare and satisfaction, services provided by the government, and the reduction of feuds and 'class struggle'. Polticial stability refers to a consistent government that can carry out its duty of leading a nation-state well. Abstinence from corruption, making the right decisions, reduction of multi-party struggles that might tear apart this important body, and things along this line. Last of all, economic stability implies a booming and prosperous economy fo the nation-state. While good growth figures are important, the other side of this aspect is closely linked to the social aspect. That is, economic stability also implies good socio-economic staus of the people. This matters for things like welfare, which define the social aspect. Examples of this include Closing up the income gap, and a general improvement of GDP per capita.
Now, we have laid out the fabric for the net that is going to hold this discussion. Is this definition okay for the rest of this group? If so, the main part of this discussion will soon commence.
Amrish.
"Democracy creates stability in a society".
This discussion will involve the thoughts and voices of the following students: Low Kah Khang, Ho Xian Zheng, Tay Yi Yan and myself, Amrish.
Now we shall move on to the discussion.
Since this is the first post, I shall do what a good introduction of any discussion would do--define the motion and set things straight. First of all, the political system or ideology we are looking at is democracy, where the citizens of the state exercise their right to vote for their preferred leader, or to voice out their opinions on any issues (freedom of speech).
The next key word that warrants a definition is "stability". What exactly, do we mean by stability? Since the answer to this question can indeed be very subjective, I will attempt to set out the criteria for stability for this discussion.
Stability can be split into three predominant aspects, namely the social, political, and economic stability. Social stability simply means peace and prosperity brought about in the community. This could be in terms of welfare and satisfaction, services provided by the government, and the reduction of feuds and 'class struggle'. Polticial stability refers to a consistent government that can carry out its duty of leading a nation-state well. Abstinence from corruption, making the right decisions, reduction of multi-party struggles that might tear apart this important body, and things along this line. Last of all, economic stability implies a booming and prosperous economy fo the nation-state. While good growth figures are important, the other side of this aspect is closely linked to the social aspect. That is, economic stability also implies good socio-economic staus of the people. This matters for things like welfare, which define the social aspect. Examples of this include Closing up the income gap, and a general improvement of GDP per capita.
Now, we have laid out the fabric for the net that is going to hold this discussion. Is this definition okay for the rest of this group? If so, the main part of this discussion will soon commence.
Amrish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
