engrish term two blogpost

Democracy has long been hailed as a cure-all for instability in any society, be in social, economical or political. However, should this really be the case? Democracy in itself is about people voting for their representatives in the goverment, and also for certain policies in an election. The idea or group which is supported by the larger proportion of people would win the election, so the majority rules, in a way, as they decide how the country should be run through these elections.

Technically, democracy should create stability. With the majority exercising their power over the leaders of their countries by voting, they also indirectly influence the laws and policies their leaders make, as when they choose their leaders, they choose those with ideals similar to theirs. So when the laws and policies fit into their ideals, they follow them. The government would try to please the people, as they are the ones who choose who is in it, so the majority also reaps rewards. The minority, being the smaller and thus 'weaker' group, would have to live with the majority's way of thinking, as they lack the power to change things to their needs, thanks to the system that is democacy. However, in application, it is an entirely different issue. In the case of Sri Lanka, the minority, were oppressed in this way as they lacked representatives in the government, and have resorted to force, which has resulted in a bloody(not intended to be a vulgarity) turmoil over the last few decades. This is clearly an example of how democracy indirectly contributes to instabilty instead within a country, due to the oppression of the minority.

Also, with a true democracy, there would be no boundaries on what the people can decide for their country. This includes racism, war, gender bias, and any other thing you can think off. Yes really, it would become that open. And through our Philosophy lessons, we've learnt that the majority isnt always right, through the logical fallacy of following the bandwagon. Now imagine if 75% if a country decided that hrm we think that people with pink shoes are clearly mentally unstable and should be killed. Imagine the number of people who would be killed because they own pink shoes, and imagine the rioting, the killing, and the rebelling that would come from people who don't agree with that way of thinking(imagine what would happen to the shoe industry too). Heck. Look at germany back in the early 1900s. They voted for racism against jews, they voted for hitler! And look what happened after that. A huge chunk of the german population gone, their economy went on a downturn, and the great big WWII came about.


I don't think democracy creates stability. It's just a tool for the people, and its up to them whether the country can be stable or not.

Does democracy create stability?

Does democracy create stability in a country? In the case of social stability, I think it would, as being a representative form of government, both majorities and minorities would have a say in the running of their country, and they would also be able to speak for their own issues. If the different groups have their say in running the country, it should create an environment where everyones needs are addressed, so unrest and discord would be unlikely. What do you guys think?