First, democracy is defined as a political system in which a government in rule is chosen by the majority in the country (Majority has power to elect their leaders). Stability is defined as political, economical and social stability. Political stability here refers to political stability within the country.
Basically, the method of democracy used by Singapore and other democratic South East Aisan countries can be considered as a parliamentary democracy, where the country is ruled by a parliament (which is a group of leaders from the ruling party) and not just one person, like the president.
By economic stability, I think that the economy of the country should be stable with a decent growth rate.
By political stability, I feel that the country's government must be in full control of the country's affairs, and their own internal party affairs. The PAP is a good example; they've been leading Singapore for about 40 years.
By social stability, I think that the citizens of the country, regardless of what race they are, should regard themselves as a citizen of the country and not as different groups of citizens. Also, there must not be any hostility which could result in race riots.
Democracy creates social stability in a country as there is a general agreement amongst the majority of citizens. A country’s leaders are elected based on majority, thus most of the population share similar viewpoints, which bridges gaps among citizens of the country. Though there are differences in race, religion and other factors, they are now linked politically through democracy, as they all share the same views as to who their leaders should be.
For example, in Singapore, though we are a multicultural society where citizens come from various backgrounds, democracy has become the ‘common space’ between us. Many nations in one state, but we share a common government, which the majority has chosen and decided would serve us in the best interests. During elections and voting, Singaporeans of all backgrounds are brought together to make a common decision, and during public surveys, we voice our opinions as one. Though the minority does not get their right of way, the majority in a country is most important, and social stability is fostered through the majority becoming more closely knit and harmonious. I have seen teenagers, elderly, and adults of all backgrounds being united by democracy. Though the differences remain, as they discuss who should they elect for the next ruling, or who should not, differences are forgotten.
For another example, in Japan, they are socially stable through democracy. Homogeneous as they seem, the Japanese hold the power to elect their own government, and as the majority is happy with the decision, political arguments that might cause social problems is eliminated as a problem. When unhappiness over an elected government arises, the people are united in their voice as they call for a new leadership. The ‘common space’ is once again created in citizens of Japan.
Thus, as the majority of people in the country hold the power to elect leaders and make certain decisions, it can be ensured that there will be agreement among the majority on important issues, which ensures social stability as almost everyone shares the same view. Thus democracy, which encourages unified agreement of a large percentage of a country, creates social stability in the society.
Democracy also creates political stability as the elected leaders have the support of the majority of the people, thus preventing any other groups of people from causing any conflict for the new government as the leaders were chosen via a fair election. The popularity of a party also affirms the people's trust in the party and its leaders, thus making it easier for the people to accept any new changes that come along.
Look at Singapore for example. The PAP have led Singapore since independance for about 43 years, and regardless of whatever hardships we faced we were still able to pull through and gain the recognition that we have today. This shows that the PAP was and is in full control of their intra-party affairs, and so will be able to manage the affairs of a country admirably. This creates political stability as the party is in control and it has the confidence of the people, so the citizens will not be discontent and start conflicting with the government
Thus, from this evidence, I can conclude that democracy creates political stability in a country.
I would like to comment on Yen San’s point of view on how democracy can create social stability in a country. According to Yen San, as the majority chooses the leaders of a country, and since most of the population shares the similar viewpoints, this will cause the country to be socially stable.
I personally do not agree with his point of view. Although the majority has the same goals and viewpoints, the neglected minority may cause problems, such as social stability issues in a country, especially when the minority is a large one.
For example, in Sri Lanka, 73.8% are Sinhalese and 18% are Tamils, making the Tamils the 2nd largest population group and the largest minority group in Sri Lanka. Due to the large amount of Sinhalese, the Sinhalese government is the official government of Sri Lanka, as the Sinhalese majority voted so.
However, the Tamils were unhappy with these, as the Sinhalese government treated the majority and minorities unequally. Although 18% of Tamils may seem to be a small percentage compared to the Sinhalese, Sri Lanka being a country with a population of 20 million people, which will mean that there are 3.6 million people who are Tamils. Such a large amount of people is definitely enough to create havoc in a country, and true enough, in the past few years, there were many social stability issues in Sri Lanka due to the conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils.
Thus, according to my above example, even though the majority of a country may have the same viewpoints, however, this does not mean that social stability issues will not occur.
I feel that a channel for expression of feelings is an important role in stability. This is due to the fact that as dissatisfaction builds up, it will result in frustration, anger, unrest and eventually downfall. Such a progress corresponds to decreasing stability within a country. However, the underlying factor for the need to express feelings may come from poor governance or discrimination. Dissatisfaction comes about precisely because there is a government that is oblivious to the people's concerns. When such a scenario happens, democracy is probably the best answer as there seems to be a form of a feedback channel, which serves to curb the power of an ineffective government, by the people’s say. Also, there are certain things more concrete such as the constituency that will help to check on the power of the government. Furthermore, promoting non-violent protests and other means of non-aggressive expression will help lower tensions and violence in a society.
Concerning majority rule, I believe the government has to maintain an anti-discriminatory attitude and take necessary steps to ensure that the minority’s voice is not overwhelmed and blocked out by the majority’s opinions. Emphasis on human rights could also discourage the discrimination of minority groups. In any case, I believe that responsible choice is a very important factor for determining the success of democracy and that democracy is indeed needed to bring about stability.
Finally, to again support the stand that our group has, that democracy creates stability in a country, we shall take advantage of hindsight to see the situation in Singapore, a country with a semi-democratic government. The reason why Singapore is named a semi-democratic system is that the opposition here in Singapore is not strong enough, and thus there is no effective check to the government's power, and that the government has to check themselves. Our government has been successfully doing that for the many years that they have been in power, and the situation now in Singapore is pretty peaceful. Looking back at the days before any proper democratic government at all, back then when the communist were creating lots of unrest, we can see how the democratic system that our country uses has been successful in creating stability, in addition to the government being “good” itself.
For example, even though the Sri Lankan government can be considered democratic, with a strong opposition party and voting, it itself is not an effective government due to its bias and unwillingness to listen to the minority groups, one very important aspect of democracy. Since the power of the predominantly Singhalese government was given to them by the majority race, the Singhalese, I can safely say that the party will remain in power for quite some time. And if they continue to ignore the minorities, their problems of instability will not go away soon. Thus, for democracy to create stability in a society, there has to be an unbiased view of the people by the government.
11 comments:
Ok guys lets start posting here. Let's have a fun discussion! :D
First, democracy is defined as a political system in which a government in rule is chosen by the majority in the country (Majority has power to elect their leaders). Stability is defined as political, economical and social stability. Political stability here refers to political stability within the country.
kk.
Basically, the method of democracy used by Singapore and other democratic South East Aisan countries
can be considered as a parliamentary democracy, where the country is ruled by a parliament (which is a group of leaders from the ruling party) and not just one person, like the president.
By economic stability, I think that the economy of the country should be stable with a decent growth rate.
By political stability, I feel that the country's government must be in full control of the country's affairs, and their own internal party affairs. The PAP is a good example; they've been leading Singapore for about 40 years.
By social stability, I think that the citizens of the country, regardless of what race they are, should regard themselves as a citizen of the country and not as different groups of citizens.
Also, there must not be any hostility which could result in race riots.
Anyone has any other comments?
Democracy creates social stability in a country as there is a general agreement amongst the majority of citizens. A country’s leaders are elected based on majority, thus most of the population share similar viewpoints, which bridges gaps among citizens of the country. Though there are differences in race, religion and other factors, they are now linked politically through democracy, as they all share the same views as to who their leaders should be.
For example, in Singapore, though we are a multicultural society where citizens come from various backgrounds, democracy has become the ‘common space’ between us. Many nations in one state, but we share a common government, which the majority has chosen and decided would serve us in the best interests. During elections and voting, Singaporeans of all backgrounds are brought together to make a common decision, and during public surveys, we voice our opinions as one. Though the minority does not get their right of way, the majority in a country is most important, and social stability is fostered through the majority becoming more closely knit and harmonious. I have seen teenagers, elderly, and adults of all backgrounds being united by democracy. Though the differences remain, as they discuss who should they elect for the next ruling, or who should not, differences are forgotten.
For another example, in Japan, they are socially stable through democracy. Homogeneous as they seem, the Japanese hold the power to elect their own government, and as the majority is happy with the decision, political arguments that might cause social problems is eliminated as a problem. When unhappiness over an elected government arises, the people are united in their voice as they call for a new leadership. The ‘common space’ is once again created in citizens of Japan.
Thus, as the majority of people in the country hold the power to elect leaders and make certain decisions, it can be ensured that there will be agreement among the majority on important issues, which ensures social stability as almost everyone shares the same view. Thus democracy, which encourages unified agreement of a large percentage of a country, creates social stability in the society.
Democracy also creates political stability as the elected leaders have the support of the majority of the people, thus preventing any other groups of people from causing any conflict for the new government as the leaders were chosen via a fair election. The popularity of a party also affirms the people's trust in the party and its leaders, thus making it easier for the people to accept any new changes that come along.
Look at Singapore for example. The PAP have led Singapore since independance for about 43 years, and regardless of whatever hardships we faced we were still able to pull through and gain the recognition that we have today. This shows that the PAP was and is in full control of their intra-party affairs, and so will be able to manage the affairs of a country admirably. This creates political stability as the party is in control and it has the confidence of the people, so the citizens will not be discontent and start conflicting with the government
Thus, from this evidence, I can conclude that democracy creates political stability in a country.
Please feel free to comment as you see fit.
I would like to comment on Yen San’s point of view on how democracy can create social stability in a country. According to Yen San, as the majority chooses the leaders of a country, and since most of the population shares the similar viewpoints, this will cause the country to be socially stable.
I personally do not agree with his point of view. Although the majority has the same goals and viewpoints, the neglected minority may cause problems, such as social stability issues in a country, especially when the minority is a large one.
For example, in Sri Lanka, 73.8% are Sinhalese and 18% are Tamils, making the Tamils the 2nd largest population group and the largest minority group in Sri Lanka. Due to the large amount of Sinhalese, the Sinhalese government is the official government of Sri Lanka, as the Sinhalese majority voted so.
However, the Tamils were unhappy with these, as the Sinhalese government treated the majority and minorities unequally. Although 18% of Tamils may seem to be a small percentage compared to the Sinhalese, Sri Lanka being a country with a population of 20 million people, which will mean that there are 3.6 million people who are Tamils. Such a large amount of people is definitely enough to create havoc in a country, and true enough, in the past few years, there were many social stability issues in Sri Lanka due to the conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils.
Thus, according to my above example, even though the majority of a country may have the same viewpoints, however, this does not mean that social stability issues will not occur.
I feel that a channel for expression of feelings is an important role in stability. This is due to the fact that as dissatisfaction builds up, it will result in frustration, anger, unrest and eventually downfall. Such a progress corresponds to decreasing stability within a country. However, the underlying factor for the need to express feelings may come from poor governance or discrimination. Dissatisfaction comes about precisely because there is a government that is oblivious to the people's concerns. When such a scenario happens, democracy is probably the best answer as there seems to be a form of a feedback channel, which serves to curb the power of an ineffective government, by the people’s say. Also, there are certain things more concrete such as the constituency that will help to check on the power of the government. Furthermore, promoting non-violent protests and other means of non-aggressive expression will help lower tensions and violence in a society.
Concerning majority rule, I believe the government has to maintain an anti-discriminatory attitude and take necessary steps to ensure that the minority’s voice is not overwhelmed and blocked out by the majority’s opinions. Emphasis on human rights could also discourage the discrimination of minority groups. In any case, I believe that responsible choice is a very important factor for determining the success of democracy and that democracy is indeed needed to bring about stability.
Finally, to again support the stand that our group has, that democracy creates stability in a country, we shall take advantage of hindsight to see the situation in Singapore, a country with a semi-democratic government. The reason why Singapore is named a semi-democratic system is that the opposition here in Singapore is not strong enough, and thus there is no effective check to the government's power, and that the government has to check themselves. Our government has been successfully doing that for the many years that they have been in power, and the situation now in Singapore is pretty peaceful. Looking back at the days before any proper democratic government at all, back then when the communist were creating lots of unrest, we can see how the democratic system that our country uses has been successful in creating stability, in addition to the government being “good” itself.
For example, even though the Sri Lankan government can be considered democratic, with a strong opposition party and voting, it itself is not an effective government due to its bias and unwillingness to listen to the minority groups, one very important aspect of democracy. Since the power of the predominantly Singhalese government was given to them by the majority race, the Singhalese, I can safely say that the party will remain in power for quite some time. And if they continue to ignore the minorities, their problems of instability will not go away soon. Thus, for democracy to create stability in a society, there has to be an unbiased view of the people by the government.
Post a Comment