What do you mean by stability? Do we want to concentrate on only certain aspects of this or do we want to cover all aspects? (As Mrs Ong said would be quite a lot to handle)
I think that as students we should, like Mrs. Ong suggested, limit our boundaries to the social sphere only, since we know nothing about how democracy and the economy interact in a society and the political sphere is also very vast and vague to tackle. So, moving into how democracy creates social stability in a society, first we have to define the term 'stability'. I think that we can say that a country which has 'social stability' denotes a society in which the people generally do not have conflicts within themselves that potentially lead to the downfall of that society, and the citizens are generally happy living with the various social groups (i.e.- racial, linguistic, religious , etc.) in their society. Would anyone like to add on to this definition?
I think that we should also establish for ourselves the meaning of a democracy as a system of government. I shall now proceed to establish the principles and tenets of a democracy (taken from http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm, a university website):
- a democracy is a system of government in which the people of the country make political decisions and maintain political sovereignity by voting and going by the majority and/or by electing certain representatives to make these decisions for them
- a democracy is a system in which certain basic human rights of the people (such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion) are protected and laws govern the running of the country, which apply to all citizens equally
- a democracy is a system of government in which the citizens have the duty to participate in political activites by either voting or standing for elections in political decision-making situations, and ideally, a system in which the citizens have access to the right information to make decisions
Now that we have established these principles to be kept in mind, let us discuss about how these principles of democracy help to create/are a bane to creating stability in a society.
Yes abhishek is right in clarifying this definition but i would like to tackle the content of this argument. Besides saying that democracy does not create stability, we can also look at the issue from another point of view. We can use 'stability' to disprove this argument. I would like to say that stability is a relatvie concept and that it is subject to change. Thus, it would not be fine to give stability one definition and continue the argument. If so, we would be extremely myopic and this would affect the credibility of our argument.
Yes I agree that stability of a country is very subjective. As Mrs. Ong has told us before, democracy exists in various forms accross the world, and the systems evolves to best fit into the country that adopts the method. Also, I believe that the content of our essay should not just be based on the social factors. Yes, althought the social factors are indeed the most important factors, we must not exclude the other factors in which Mrs. Ong has in fact told us in class before. These are some of the pointers that I have recollected.
Political Internal - There must be common consensus to use democracy as the method to choose their leaders. External - Good dilpomatic ties. Gain international recognition.
Social Internal - High literacy rate such that votes are more accurate. Internal - Candidates must have the ability to lead the country well.
Economic Internal - Income gap must be small. Middle-class must be strong. External - Relatively rich. Foreign investmentors need to gain confidence.
Others Internal - The military must not be governed under the new government. Internal - Free press must be allowed to check on the government's doings.
This is basically the outline. And only when these criteria are fulfilled, can a country actually have "pure democracy". However, we have to note that some countries do mutate the system a bit, in order to fit their own system and beliefs.
we see that democracy means that he citizens of the country is fully literate of reaching a correct and informed choice of the political fratenity.however, if we make this assumption about the country we talk about in our essay, it would be seriouisly wrong as it is alrdy making the assumption. what if the country we are talking about hasnt got the ability to discern for themselves but the government thinks that they can discern for themselves?
Yes, I do agree with you Shayne. And to answer your question, I'll raise an example that I have used in my essay. In African countries such as Zimbabwe, Chad and Kenya, the opposition parties are forcing the countries to make a change. However, the literacy rate is relatively low, and many of them are still tuned into beliving their traditional way of life. Such a contrast between the government and the people's mindset had led to many bloosheds, killing tens of thousands of people each year. And these African countries ARE the examples of "failed democracy" where the literacy rate is not as high. Thus, the conclusion that democracy does not create stability in such countries, still holds.
Oh another thing, i agree on abhishek's point that democracy actually leads to stability and not creates stability as there are certainly many other factors included in this cause. for example, other cultural influences of the family line. hence, it is not right to say it creates stability as if it is the only facotr which causes stability.
9 comments:
I think that as students we should, like Mrs. Ong suggested, limit our boundaries to the social sphere only, since we know nothing about how democracy and the economy interact in a society and the political sphere is also very vast and vague to tackle. So, moving into how democracy creates social stability in a society, first we have to define the term 'stability'. I think that we can say that a country which has 'social stability' denotes a society in which the people generally do not have conflicts within themselves that potentially lead to the downfall of that society, and the citizens are generally happy living with the various social groups (i.e.- racial, linguistic, religious , etc.) in their society. Would anyone like to add on to this definition?
I think that we should also establish for ourselves the meaning of a democracy as a system of government. I shall now proceed to establish the principles and tenets of a democracy (taken from http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm, a university website):
- a democracy is a system of government in which the people of the country make political decisions and maintain political sovereignity by voting and going by the majority and/or by electing certain representatives to make these decisions for them
- a democracy is a system in which certain basic human rights of the people (such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion) are protected and laws govern the running of the country, which apply to all citizens equally
- a democracy is a system of government in which the citizens have the duty to participate in political activites by either voting or standing for elections in political decision-making situations, and ideally, a system in which the citizens have access to the right information to make decisions
Now that we have established these principles to be kept in mind, let us discuss about how these principles of democracy help to create/are a bane to creating stability in a society.
-Abhishek Suresh
Perhaps we could distinguish between an ideal democracy and a bad democracy, because both these scenarios lead to different effects on stability.
-Abhishek Suresh
Yes abhishek is right in clarifying this definition but i would like to tackle the content of this argument. Besides saying that democracy does not create stability, we can also look at the issue from another point of view. We can use 'stability' to disprove this argument. I would like to say that stability is a relatvie concept and that it is subject to change. Thus, it would not be fine to give stability one definition and continue the argument. If so, we would be extremely myopic and this would affect the credibility of our argument.
Yes I agree that stability of a country is very subjective. As Mrs. Ong has told us before, democracy exists in various forms accross the world, and the systems evolves to best fit into the country that adopts the method. Also, I believe that the content of our essay should not just be based on the social factors. Yes, althought the social factors are indeed the most important factors, we must not exclude the other factors in which Mrs. Ong has in fact told us in class before. These are some of the pointers that I have recollected.
Political
Internal - There must be common consensus to use democracy as the method to choose their leaders.
External - Good dilpomatic ties. Gain international recognition.
Social
Internal - High literacy rate such that votes are more accurate.
Internal - Candidates must have the ability to lead the country well.
Economic
Internal - Income gap must be small. Middle-class must be strong.
External - Relatively rich. Foreign investmentors need to gain confidence.
Others
Internal - The military must not be governed under the new government.
Internal - Free press must be allowed to check on the government's doings.
This is basically the outline. And only when these criteria are fulfilled, can a country actually have "pure democracy". However, we have to note that some countries do mutate the system a bit, in order to fit their own system and beliefs.
we see that democracy means that he citizens of the country is fully literate of reaching a correct and informed choice of the political fratenity.however, if we make this assumption about the country we talk about in our essay, it would be seriouisly wrong as it is alrdy making the assumption. what if the country we are talking about hasnt got the ability to discern for themselves but the government thinks that they can discern for themselves?
Yes, I do agree with you Shayne. And to answer your question, I'll raise an example that I have used in my essay. In African countries such as Zimbabwe, Chad and Kenya, the opposition parties are forcing the countries to make a change. However, the literacy rate is relatively low, and many of them are still tuned into beliving their traditional way of life. Such a contrast between the government and the people's mindset had led to many bloosheds, killing tens of thousands of people each year. And these African countries ARE the examples of "failed democracy" where the literacy rate is not as high. Thus, the conclusion that democracy does not create stability in such countries, still holds.
Oh another thing, i agree on abhishek's point that democracy actually leads to stability and not creates stability as there are certainly many other factors included in this cause. for example, other cultural influences of the family line. hence, it is not right to say it creates stability as if it is the only facotr which causes stability.
Post a Comment