Tuesday, May 20, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree however each country views democracy in its own perspective. From the Luminary Vol. I, No. 1 (Summer 1998) Part 3, there is a paragraph. The source says that "a special form of "Asian democracy" that can be identified as phobocracy". like in Singapore, there is a dominant party, the People's Action Party, which may lead to "rule of fear". If this happens then what about the minority parties? Are their issues addressed?
Hey, let me post my comment...
Okay,
For me, somehow I agree with what Justin stated, "rule of fear". Democracy's aspect - Representative government do not always bring stability to the state. It can brings unstability or even 'doom' to the state. Let's think, A country with the leader from the dominant party. The leader was chosen from a voting and won. Obviously, we can say that most of the people voted for this party - 'dominant rules'.
As the leader is from the dominant party, Can he/she address every issues from all of the people???
Can he/she voice out every people's aspirations??
What will happen if the leader just address dominant's aspirations? The minorities would be / seems to be neglected. The minorities can't bring up their issues, they can't address their aspirations. Thus, this can lead the state to the instability, as not all people are satisfied with the government. The instabilitiy can be seen in the form of disapproval, riot, or even war.
I think that Democracy cannot create stability on it's own. Though the government will have an incentive to help the majority of people if it wants to stay reelected, it may ignore/harm the interests of minorities due to the will of the majority. Even if it addresses the needs of a minority (maybe the majority wants minorities to have rights too), it all depends on the demands of the majority, not the form of government. For example, if the majority wanted to harm the minorities, there would be nothing the government could do to stop that if it wanted to be reelected. In that case, democracy would be no better than a lawless state (It might even be worse, if it passed laws to harm the minority even more (e.g. NI Penal Code).).
Yes but in a case of a very tight election, it is the minority that makes the difference. my opinion is that the only time the minority has a say in anything is in such situation. even if there is liberalism, there is still a chance that the majority will may not exactly have the same views as the minority like what we have studied with sri lanka. People are dying using democracy there.
by the way,do we have to get an article to write our blog article for Eng?
dont think so, we can use articles to illustrate our points though, its optional.
Post a Comment