What is democracy? According to Wikipedia, "Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives." To put simply, democracy is just a system that gives citizens of a country a choice to elect their leaders to represent them and their various constituencies. Having a stable society simply means that conflicts are minimal, there is peace in the country and that everyone is living happily. So, does democracy bring about stability?
Firstly, democracy would bring about stability. Firstly, democracy gives "power to the people". Citizens have a right to decide who they want to represent them. They made their voices heard. In Switzerland, citizens are to vote every Sunday to decide whether certain policies proposed by the government should be implemented. If you put yourself in a situation where you can shape your lives with your own hands, instead of letting others choose for you, why not choose yourself? Provided citizens vote wisely, democracy would definitely bring about stability.
In another case, democracy would bring about stability, which is when parties are very evenly matched, and there is no overly-dominant party. If there were a few parties that are evenly matched, the resulting ruling party would definitely do a better job. the ruling party would know that the other parties are very close behind them, and would fear not being elected again at the next general elections. By having a few closely matched parties, pressure would arise on the ruling party, hence they would take a step further to ensure that the people's needs are satisfied, which would in turn create a stable society.
If we dive deeper into whether democracy indeed brings about stability, we find loopholes and limitations to democracy.
To start off, we know that democracy would give people a choice to decide what they want, since they vote for the people whom they want representing them. However, there is not one case in the entire world where everyone has a common view and votes for the same person. We have never seen a 100% win over another party, provided two or more parties are present. This just shows that not everyone will be satisfied. When not everyone is satisfied, how can it be that the society has reached a common agreement on things, and how would it be rid of conflicts? The majority always gets its say, and the minority would just have to quietly accept. Consequences could be dire if no attention is given to these issues. Take the case of Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers are already staging a "rebellion". Has it ever struck us that one day it might happen to us? As long as we people remain different or have differing viewpoints, not everyone would be satisfied. Therefore, democracy would not bring about a stable society.
Another point to note would that chances of corruption would increase. Why so? When a member of a party wants to win the election in his constituency, chances are that he might resort to bribery to persuade people to vote for him. Even in parliament, to successfully propose a bill, you need votes from all members. Corruption within members of parliament might occur too. When there is corruption, can the government still be trusted? Will the people have faith in them? My answer is no. After losing confidence in their leaders, the citizens would be like lost sheep. Without having a reliable government, how would the society be stable then?
In my opinion, decisions made by the people are the most important factor in determining whether democracy would lead to stability. The people affect all the benefits and limitations of democracy stated above. They can make a benefit of democracy into a limitation, and vice versa. Why so?
When we look at democracy being giving power to the people, we often assume that the people are making the right choice. What if they are not? If they vote for the wrong party, or the wrong leader, consequences are dire. We say democracy gives people what they want. What if what they want is not necessarily the best they can have?
Yes, the majority would get what they want, and the minority would not, but this might not lead to a conflict. If the people's mindsets are that they accept the decision made by the majority, and that they know it is for the better, they would calm down and accept it. The mindsets of people matter a lot in determining whether democracy would bring about stability or not.
Democracy is like mixing chemicals. With the correct mixture of chemicals, you might get something amazing. However, if mixed with wrong chemicals, consequences might be disastrous. Why do I say so? If you have 2 parties - one being extremely strict yet reliable, and the other being extremely lax and unreliable, and a group of citizens who think that the former are too strict and decides to vote for the latter, consequences would be disastrous. In another case, if you replace the citizens with those who know that the strict laws implemented would help them in the long run, results would be good since they would choose the right government for themselves. Therefore, I feel that whether or not democracy would bring about stability depends on the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment