sigh, post number 2- Democracy Creates Stability in Society

Democracy is considered the ideal method of governance in modern countries of the twenty first century to create stability. However, in this commentary, I would like to disagree by focusing on one main aspect of stability: social stability. This is in which the people of a country are at rest and conflicts are not present in the country, be it underlying or prominent.

To employ democracy would mean that every individual can make a good informed judgement of political matters concerning their country for themselves. Thus, we can see this is rather much dependent on the literacy rate of the country. That is, if the literacy rate is high, the citizens in that country would tend to be more informed about their say in politics. Democracy in a country would mean fair treatment to all, regardless of race, language or religion. Furthermore, the people of the society can have voting through pure democracy, in which everybody votes on policies per se and the majority wins (referendum) ; or representative democracy, where the people nominate a representative to voice their opinion on state issues.

In this case, I tend to think that democracy merely leads to social stability and does not create stability. An ideal democracy is a society which inculcates the equal treatment of all, despite differences in many. This should solve all conflicts which could arise in our world today. However, it is highly unfeasible that such an ideal should be present in our modernized world today. For example, it is undeniable that despite all the physical differences we try our very best to stem out, the idea of elitism still holds. In any developed country of today, it is the crème dele crème who get the scholarships, get the jobs, and earn the big bucks. Thus, the concept of pure democracy is simply too idealistic a system to uphold.

Also, I do not think democracy actually creates stability, however, I believe it leads to stability, considering the fact that many other factors are also employed. For example, social stability can created due to cultures in their own family line, a common identity forged by a unified symbol. For example, in Japan, there consists of one people with a unified identity. Looking at the modern Japan, it is rather stable socially speaking. Also, looking at modern day Singapore, it is a highly unified system with rare conflicts. This is done so by a national pledge which fosters nation building and state advancing without the presence of conflict. Thus, we cannot say that it is democracy that actually creates social stability, but instead, it merely leads to social stability along with a few other factors.

Lastly, stability is a temporary subject with no absolute concept and no absolute definition. Instead, it is relative, subject to its constant: change. Such a constant can be due to factors such as a major war or environmental disasters. Thus, it is not possible to say democracy can create stability when stability is a constant and is relative while democracy has a fixed definition.

In conclusion, though democracy does result in social stability, it merely leads to social stability due to the presence of other factors such as a common identity. Also, stability is a relative concept and is subjected to the constant, change. Thus, I disagree that democracy creates stability in society.