As I have mentioned in my previous post, whether democracy can create stability in a society depends not on the situation of a country itself . I will try to further substantiate my point in this essay.
To begin with, democracy can create stability in a society. The ideal of democracy is that the all the people in the country have a chance in deciding what they want and the majority of the preference decide how the policy will perform. It also gives opportunity to people to let off their resentment as it acts as a channel to dispel their dissatisfactions. Take Switzerland for example, which is widely considered one of the world's most stable countries, is a direct democracy where elections as well as many other things are also decided by public votes. It is the closest existing form to the ideal democracy. Switzerland is famous for its economic stability in terms of prosperity, growth figures and GDP. It is a perfect example to prove that democracy can actually bring stability to a society.
Another form of democracy, liberal representative democracy, is slightly different from direct democracy that the representatives elected by the populace will represent them as their voice. In the case of the United States, which uses this form of democracy, there is also economic stability in that it is a world super economy; politically stable because there are no multiparty conflicts since there are only two parties; and social stability because the people there lead a very comfortable life. Here too we see that democracy allows for the society to have stability.
However, democracy may not create stability in a society. Let’s take a familiar instance, Sri Lanka, which is a democracy country that has been plagued by ethnic collisions between Tamils and Sinhalese. There is little social stability with so many conflicts. In addition, the LTTE and other Tamil activists are always acting against the Sinhalese government. Because of so many problems, there is also no stability. One of the causes of the conflict is the elected government itself. From the very beginning, the Sinhalese and Tamils voted for parties of their own ethnicity in the elections. Because the Sinhalese are the majority, the Sinhalese parties always win. This resulted in permanent resentment in the Tamil groups. From this, we can see that democracy may not create stability in a society. In a situation like this, democracy only adds fuel to the fire of instability.
While democracy may or may not create stability in a society, I want to emphasize that conditions may not be suitable to implement democracy in some countries. For instance, it could not be implemented in China after the fall of the emperor because of the state of despair at that time. Someone had to come down and make things work, or conflicting opinions will aggravate chaos. China-Special Socialism helped to consolidate and lift the society as well as greatly improving the economy and the international status of the country.
The largest democracy in the world, India, is a good example to argue on the pros and cons of the democratic system. While democracy and its companion capitalistic beliefs have just propelled India into a super economy and given it economic stability, this increased capitalism has widened the income gap at the same time. Thus the socio-economic status of the bottom half of the society degrades while the upper half make even big progress. This is expected to impact the social stability and might lead to things getting out of control. Too much freedom also wreaks havoc because there are so many different parties with different ideals, which paralyses the functioning of the government sometimes, and often results in hung decisions.
As I have mentioned above, democracy works very well in Switzerland and US, but fails terribly in countries like Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland and is in a limbo in countries like India. Therefore whether or not democracy creates stability in a society is a subjective development and can vary depending on various factors that surround each situation.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Concluding Democracy---A political system ideal only theoretically?
All this while, we have been discussing democracy as being the best political system theoretically in that in terms of the constitution, the idea of an independent judiciary, the notion of "rule by the people", the idea of democratization etc, democracy may seem to stand out the most relative to many other political systems, but there is a catch to it, in that do all these "benefits of democracy" work only philosophically and invalidated when put into action, or do they work both on paper and in action? This is the core tenet of the discussion which I am going to hold today.
Firstly, we see that on paper, democracy seems to promise the notion of rule by the people where the government's policies have to follow the majority of the population such that the course of progress within the country is largely influenced by the main population. But there is a catch, when such principle is put into action, we see that the notion of "Rule by the people" no longer stand, but instead "devolved" into a more derogatory term of "tyranny of the majority". We see that the nature of humans had ultimately resulted in their "manipulation" and "exploitation" of democracy's core ideas, such that democracy had degraded to nothing more than mob rule where "51% of the people are right and the other 49% of the people are wrong" as quoted from Thomas Jefferson. Here, it is evident that democracy does not promise the "mutual consensus" among people as seen on principle, but rather, it seems to promote the idea that the majority is necessarily correct while the minority is necessarily wrong.
This false exploitation of democracy terms had of course led to many problems as discussed earlier on by many of us such as the LTTE Crisis in Sri Lanka where the government made up by the majority Sinhalese devised policies catered predominantly to the Sinhalese, through acts such as the University Admission Act where Sinhalese were given utmost priorities to access to elite tertiary education, as well as the Language act where the government decreed in 1956 that Sinhalese will be the only National Language, sidelining the less prominent (but still useful to the minorities) Tamil. This obvious sidelining of the minorities and promoting the majority once again affirmed the notion of "Tyranny of the Majority" where the Sinhalese Government's actions seemed to reflect that the majority is correct while the minority is wrong. This obvious tyranny of the majority had inevitably led to social and political instability where in decades the political arena is filled with assassinations where countless of ministers, legislates and presidents injured/killed by the minority. It had also led to the serious disruption of social order where just a few days ago, the minorities had led off a series of bombing of public transport, causing instability in the society where the members of the public are constantly on tenterhooks over their public safety.
As such, it is very evident that indeed democracy may seem to promote peace and stability through their notion of "led by the people" but in reality, democracy had truly caused more harm than good because of Men's exploitation of the very nature of democracy such that it had degraded to nothing more than tyranny of the majority, inevitably resulting in serious socio-political disorder too.
Next, the idea of judicial independence had often been perceived as an integral part of democracy and the notion of constitution being strong (in that any changes made to the constitution will be highly unlikely) may have promised the prospects of maintaining the socio-political status quo of peace and stability, but is the judicial system really independent from the various political entities in reality? Is the constitution as omnipotent as perceived?
Indeed, we see that the constitution in a democratic country may "guarantee" some forms of political neutrality of the judiciary, but in reality, this is not often the case as seen from many democratic states. Mahathir was able to sack the supreme judges in 1988 (Together with the Yang-di Pertuan Agong) and was also involved in the recent controversy of "Judge Fixing". Malaysia is a democratic state, and its constitution did originally forbid the Judicial entity from being influenced by political entities, but this constitution law was later revoked by Mahathir to the extent that he was vested with the ultimate power to select and approve judges in his own course. Evidently, the judiciary in then Malaysia was definitely not independent from the Political Arena of Malaysia.
Now, this goes to show that because of the nature of Humans such that Men will twist the system in such a way that democracy can benefit his/her own future, they are still able to manipulate the original constitution, and with a super-majority, they can still alter the constitution at will. Here, it is clear that in reality, the constitution is not as omnipotent as it seeks to be. Indeed, we see that the government has to conform to the constitution set in place originally, but the crux of the problem here is that the government is also able to alter the constitution at will too as long as they have a 2/3 majority which is commonly present in many democratic countries where the opposition is too weak. Malaysia's UMNO for example, had been dominating Malaysian politics since Independence Day, such that even Mahathir could alter the constitution at will, sacking the judges and placing his own judges in power. Such actions truly defy the nature of democracy where the Government is perceived to be ruled by the people, but the very fact that political antics of changing the constitution, denying judicial independence, had to a large extent shifted away from the fundamental definition of democracy in being "Rule by the people", to a "Rule by the Governmet".
This is the true problem of representative democracy in that the political party put in place in power by the people can have such overwhelming power such that they can alter the constitution, remove the idea of judicial independence etc, and by being the only omnipotent body in government, and as what others have posted earlier on, it results in the government susceptible to being authoritarian or even totalitarian. Here, we do need to see that on paper, democracy forces the government to conform to the constitution and it promises that the judiciary has to be independent, but all these are ultimately premised on the basis of a strong opposition, such that the constitution is an omnipotent being, something that will not be changed at will by the dominant party (With a strong opposition in hand). Sadly though, this idea of a strong opposition is not seen as a common case in many democratic countries, in fact, many "democratic countries" are dominated by one single and strong party which often, through political means and strong support, are able to dominate the political arena by altering the constitution at will, where Gerrymandering, political incentives, political fraud etc had been known and established tactics played by democratic parties in a bid to win elections. This, is therefore the second problem of democracy, in that theoretically, we see that democracy promises that the government has to work in accordance to the people's wishes as well as the need to conform to the constitution, but in reality, this is not often the case as we see that Men's overwhelming political hunger had led to them manipulating the democratic system, such that they can garner the 2/3 majority needed to change the constitution at will, ultimately dominating the political arena.
This as a result, led to many "democratic countries" with only one single, dominant political faction that is seemingly omnipotent, and almost impossible to get them out of position as they, through democratic processes, are able to change the constitution at will, thereby rendering the opposition weak and useless, unable to serve as a counter-force to the dominant party, resulting in the country susceptible to political dominance by a single party and with no counter-power to balance the power in the country, the idea of transparency of the government, the idea of safeguarding the people's interests as well as the notion of keeping the government in check will not be in place, making the government susceptible to corruption, authoritarianism, omnipotent etc.
For short, this whole chunk can be concluded in a short, sweet statement, in that Democracy is no longer an end which Men move to, but rather, a political tool for a political agenda for dominating the political arena, or simply put, it is a means to a selfish end. Indeed, we see that democracy may work out well in principle and in theory, but ultimately we have to understand that all these will not come true when put in place due to the very nature of Men of being power-hungry, manipulative, the lack of a strong opposition in parliament and the dim prospects of having an entirely independent judiciary system in a democratic country had made democracy unable to offer what it can promise when put into practice.
Towards this, what are your views? Do you agree with the notion that democracy works well theoretically, but not when put into place? Before concluding the post, I shall bring up Stuart Chase (19th century economist) famous quote "Democracy, as had been said of Christianity, has never really ben tried." Ultimately, democracy is a dream, something promised, but never done.
Cx
Firstly, we see that on paper, democracy seems to promise the notion of rule by the people where the government's policies have to follow the majority of the population such that the course of progress within the country is largely influenced by the main population. But there is a catch, when such principle is put into action, we see that the notion of "Rule by the people" no longer stand, but instead "devolved" into a more derogatory term of "tyranny of the majority". We see that the nature of humans had ultimately resulted in their "manipulation" and "exploitation" of democracy's core ideas, such that democracy had degraded to nothing more than mob rule where "51% of the people are right and the other 49% of the people are wrong" as quoted from Thomas Jefferson. Here, it is evident that democracy does not promise the "mutual consensus" among people as seen on principle, but rather, it seems to promote the idea that the majority is necessarily correct while the minority is necessarily wrong.
This false exploitation of democracy terms had of course led to many problems as discussed earlier on by many of us such as the LTTE Crisis in Sri Lanka where the government made up by the majority Sinhalese devised policies catered predominantly to the Sinhalese, through acts such as the University Admission Act where Sinhalese were given utmost priorities to access to elite tertiary education, as well as the Language act where the government decreed in 1956 that Sinhalese will be the only National Language, sidelining the less prominent (but still useful to the minorities) Tamil. This obvious sidelining of the minorities and promoting the majority once again affirmed the notion of "Tyranny of the Majority" where the Sinhalese Government's actions seemed to reflect that the majority is correct while the minority is wrong. This obvious tyranny of the majority had inevitably led to social and political instability where in decades the political arena is filled with assassinations where countless of ministers, legislates and presidents injured/killed by the minority. It had also led to the serious disruption of social order where just a few days ago, the minorities had led off a series of bombing of public transport, causing instability in the society where the members of the public are constantly on tenterhooks over their public safety.
As such, it is very evident that indeed democracy may seem to promote peace and stability through their notion of "led by the people" but in reality, democracy had truly caused more harm than good because of Men's exploitation of the very nature of democracy such that it had degraded to nothing more than tyranny of the majority, inevitably resulting in serious socio-political disorder too.
Next, the idea of judicial independence had often been perceived as an integral part of democracy and the notion of constitution being strong (in that any changes made to the constitution will be highly unlikely) may have promised the prospects of maintaining the socio-political status quo of peace and stability, but is the judicial system really independent from the various political entities in reality? Is the constitution as omnipotent as perceived?
Indeed, we see that the constitution in a democratic country may "guarantee" some forms of political neutrality of the judiciary, but in reality, this is not often the case as seen from many democratic states. Mahathir was able to sack the supreme judges in 1988 (Together with the Yang-di Pertuan Agong) and was also involved in the recent controversy of "Judge Fixing". Malaysia is a democratic state, and its constitution did originally forbid the Judicial entity from being influenced by political entities, but this constitution law was later revoked by Mahathir to the extent that he was vested with the ultimate power to select and approve judges in his own course. Evidently, the judiciary in then Malaysia was definitely not independent from the Political Arena of Malaysia.
Now, this goes to show that because of the nature of Humans such that Men will twist the system in such a way that democracy can benefit his/her own future, they are still able to manipulate the original constitution, and with a super-majority, they can still alter the constitution at will. Here, it is clear that in reality, the constitution is not as omnipotent as it seeks to be. Indeed, we see that the government has to conform to the constitution set in place originally, but the crux of the problem here is that the government is also able to alter the constitution at will too as long as they have a 2/3 majority which is commonly present in many democratic countries where the opposition is too weak. Malaysia's UMNO for example, had been dominating Malaysian politics since Independence Day, such that even Mahathir could alter the constitution at will, sacking the judges and placing his own judges in power. Such actions truly defy the nature of democracy where the Government is perceived to be ruled by the people, but the very fact that political antics of changing the constitution, denying judicial independence, had to a large extent shifted away from the fundamental definition of democracy in being "Rule by the people", to a "Rule by the Governmet".
This is the true problem of representative democracy in that the political party put in place in power by the people can have such overwhelming power such that they can alter the constitution, remove the idea of judicial independence etc, and by being the only omnipotent body in government, and as what others have posted earlier on, it results in the government susceptible to being authoritarian or even totalitarian. Here, we do need to see that on paper, democracy forces the government to conform to the constitution and it promises that the judiciary has to be independent, but all these are ultimately premised on the basis of a strong opposition, such that the constitution is an omnipotent being, something that will not be changed at will by the dominant party (With a strong opposition in hand). Sadly though, this idea of a strong opposition is not seen as a common case in many democratic countries, in fact, many "democratic countries" are dominated by one single and strong party which often, through political means and strong support, are able to dominate the political arena by altering the constitution at will, where Gerrymandering, political incentives, political fraud etc had been known and established tactics played by democratic parties in a bid to win elections. This, is therefore the second problem of democracy, in that theoretically, we see that democracy promises that the government has to work in accordance to the people's wishes as well as the need to conform to the constitution, but in reality, this is not often the case as we see that Men's overwhelming political hunger had led to them manipulating the democratic system, such that they can garner the 2/3 majority needed to change the constitution at will, ultimately dominating the political arena.
This as a result, led to many "democratic countries" with only one single, dominant political faction that is seemingly omnipotent, and almost impossible to get them out of position as they, through democratic processes, are able to change the constitution at will, thereby rendering the opposition weak and useless, unable to serve as a counter-force to the dominant party, resulting in the country susceptible to political dominance by a single party and with no counter-power to balance the power in the country, the idea of transparency of the government, the idea of safeguarding the people's interests as well as the notion of keeping the government in check will not be in place, making the government susceptible to corruption, authoritarianism, omnipotent etc.
For short, this whole chunk can be concluded in a short, sweet statement, in that Democracy is no longer an end which Men move to, but rather, a political tool for a political agenda for dominating the political arena, or simply put, it is a means to a selfish end. Indeed, we see that democracy may work out well in principle and in theory, but ultimately we have to understand that all these will not come true when put in place due to the very nature of Men of being power-hungry, manipulative, the lack of a strong opposition in parliament and the dim prospects of having an entirely independent judiciary system in a democratic country had made democracy unable to offer what it can promise when put into practice.
Towards this, what are your views? Do you agree with the notion that democracy works well theoretically, but not when put into place? Before concluding the post, I shall bring up Stuart Chase (19th century economist) famous quote "Democracy, as had been said of Christianity, has never really ben tried." Ultimately, democracy is a dream, something promised, but never done.
Cx
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Part 2 Fundamental Elements of a successful democracy---Constitution, Judicary and Military. Why Stability?
2nd Part (The idea of an independent judiciary )---This section will explore on yet another core element that warrant a democratic country/society stable, examining the balance of the political system with the judicary in place.
Before addressing the core tenet of this argument, we have to first understand that every democratic state has to conform to a set of norms known as a constitution, an idea I had brought up in my earlier post, and this constitution sets two restrictions---The Judiciary as well as The Military, where both are to be politically neutral in events of political crises. These 2 restrictions, however are two of the key cornerstones to a country's social and political stability, acting as a key to preventing social disruption and political rebellions.
Here, we need to see the potential implications of not having a independent judiciary entity in that without an independent judiciary, there will be in no way where the government can ever be checked on, and neither can transparency be ensured of. A judiciary that is intrinsically linked to the government t0 the extent of being a subset of the Party will mean that the Courts will condone actions of the Government even if it goes against common interests or when it violates human rights. In other words, the lack of an independent judiciary will mean that there will be nobody left to defend the rights and power of the people and everything is subjected to the government's dominance. The most recent example will be the Saffron Revolution in Myanmar where the lack of an independent court/judiciary system that is powerful enough to counter the Junta's regime, resulted in many human rights violation cases to go unscathed, ultimately sparking off socio-political disorders where the people, with no judiciary to turn to, take matters in their own stride, resulting in weeks of endless protests as well as massacres by the Junta.
To conclude, we have to see that it is only with democracy where a constitution separating the executive, legislative and judiciary from one another, maintaining the status quo of them being independent entities such that the courts will always politically neutral, presiding in the eyes of justice, as well as to check-on the government, ensuring transparency on the government's side, preventing political fraud, human rights violation etc. For short, democracy is key ultimately the key cornerstone of any country and society in allowing judiciary independence, which in turn, maintain the political and social status quo of stability and peace.
Cx
Before addressing the core tenet of this argument, we have to first understand that every democratic state has to conform to a set of norms known as a constitution, an idea I had brought up in my earlier post, and this constitution sets two restrictions---The Judiciary as well as The Military, where both are to be politically neutral in events of political crises. These 2 restrictions, however are two of the key cornerstones to a country's social and political stability, acting as a key to preventing social disruption and political rebellions.
A constitution not only serves to maintain the political status quo of a state, as brought up earlier, but also serves as a guideline between 3 top-levels in a government---The Executive Council, The Legislative Council as well as the Judiciary Council, where the executives and the legislative are intrinsically tied (due to political interests), it too explicitly stated that the judiciary has to be politically independent from any political entities, giving rise to the idea of judicial independence. As stated, a democratic country comes with a set of constitution which the government has to conform to, meaning that by principle, all true democratic states will have an independent judiciary, of which will serve as another form of power-balance between the governing body and the people. The judges will henceforth be able to ensure transparency within the government preventing political frauds and have the legal rights to declare a government illegitimate if they find the governing body guilty of political fraud or human rights violations. This example could be seen from the 1988 Malaysian Constitutional Crisis where the Supreme Judge Tun Salleh Abas declared Mahathir's New UMNO an unlawful society after a political struggle between two camps within the Original UMNO, resulting in the newly-elected government declared illegitimate. (Sadly though, this did not last long as Mahathir collaborated with the Yang di-Pertuang Argon, sacking the judges on the basis of misconduct) This further exemplified my point on the notion of an independent judiciary as a key to social-political order as not only does it serve to prevent the government from turning authoritarian and violating the citizen's human rights, but also prevent political fraud from taking place. Principally, an Independent Judiciary ought to exist in any democratic state, idealistically serving as an independent entity, checking on the government's actions.
With an independent judiciary in place, the political arena will be ensured of its transparency where the actions of the government will be "monitored" by both the watchdogs (people) and the judiciary council, preventing any political frauds or politically motivated killings/riots/protests from taking place within the political arena as well as the society. It is also essential to note that the fact that the fully politically neutral judiciary council is vested with the legal rights to dissolve a government on the basis of human rights intervention or fraud, makes it difficult for the democratically elected government to illegally pursue their own political interests, ignoring the rights of the people and impossible for them to repeat the massacres carried out by the Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Soviets. For short, the independent judiciary is the ultimate arbiter and the "nanny" of the people, such that ideally it will serve as a counter-balance to the power of the government, ensuring the political and social status quo in a society.
With democracy, the executive council as well as the legislative council will be totally independent from the politically neutral judiciary, who by right should act impartially, serving as a counter-balance to the government for the people. Now, we have to see that it is only with democracy where the idea of an independent judiciary. Socialist China (Communist) for example ,was infamous for their selection of judges at their own discretion to the extent that the Judges were considered "Public Servants", a derogatory term used mainly for those who served as government officials. This as such, goes to show how closely related the judicial system is to the CCP Government, so much so that it is impossible to consider these Judges as an independent entity from the government. At the same time, China's judiciary were powerless in terms of reviewing administrative acts of the CCP government and were subjected to influence to each level of the government. I quote from the International Herald Tribune's report "...in China, the government, not a court, is the final arbiter of law...Many judges are poorly educated in the law and corrupt. All judges still must answer to government officials as much as to the law. Political pressure is common, and private trial committees often dictate what ruling a judge must make.", thereby exemplifying my earlier point on the lack of judicial independence in China, such that a super-majority of these judges were even CCP Party Members, highlighting the intertwined relationship between China's political arena and the judiciary system. It is thereby evident that in Communist/Socialist Countries where the Courts and the Government are closely-tied and the Courts being mostly dependent on the omnipotent government, it is thereby impossible for the Courts to serve as a counter-force towards the government, and more appropriately, a CCP subsidiary of the authoritarian regime. With an independent judiciary in place, the political arena will be ensured of its transparency where the actions of the government will be "monitored" by both the watchdogs (people) and the judiciary council, preventing any political frauds or politically motivated killings/riots/protests from taking place within the political arena as well as the society. It is also essential to note that the fact that the fully politically neutral judiciary council is vested with the legal rights to dissolve a government on the basis of human rights intervention or fraud, makes it difficult for the democratically elected government to illegally pursue their own political interests, ignoring the rights of the people and impossible for them to repeat the massacres carried out by the Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Soviets. For short, the independent judiciary is the ultimate arbiter and the "nanny" of the people, such that ideally it will serve as a counter-balance to the power of the government, ensuring the political and social status quo in a society.
Here, we need to see the potential implications of not having a independent judiciary entity in that without an independent judiciary, there will be in no way where the government can ever be checked on, and neither can transparency be ensured of. A judiciary that is intrinsically linked to the government t0 the extent of being a subset of the Party will mean that the Courts will condone actions of the Government even if it goes against common interests or when it violates human rights. In other words, the lack of an independent judiciary will mean that there will be nobody left to defend the rights and power of the people and everything is subjected to the government's dominance. The most recent example will be the Saffron Revolution in Myanmar where the lack of an independent court/judiciary system that is powerful enough to counter the Junta's regime, resulted in many human rights violation cases to go unscathed, ultimately sparking off socio-political disorders where the people, with no judiciary to turn to, take matters in their own stride, resulting in weeks of endless protests as well as massacres by the Junta.
To conclude, we have to see that it is only with democracy where a constitution separating the executive, legislative and judiciary from one another, maintaining the status quo of them being independent entities such that the courts will always politically neutral, presiding in the eyes of justice, as well as to check-on the government, ensuring transparency on the government's side, preventing political fraud, human rights violation etc. For short, democracy is key ultimately the key cornerstone of any country and society in allowing judiciary independence, which in turn, maintain the political and social status quo of stability and peace.
Cx
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Part 1 Fundamental Elements of a successful democracy---Constitution, Judicary and Military. Why Stability?
1st Part (The idea of a constitution and context)---This section will explore how circumstances change thereby prioritizing democracy and the necessity of a strong and effective Constitution in any Democratic State today.
Before moving on my main point of the necessity of a strong and effective Constitution, I shall first reiterate my previous post, I once again stress that democratization starts only with the end of WW2, before that the notion of democratization was something relatively unheard of. The 20th century and the advent of the 21st century saw the dominance of the Western World in World Politics, resulting in the rapid downfall of communism by the end of the 20th century, as well as the rapid rise of democracy, of which found its way to even the 3rd World Countries.
The idea of Hitler manipulating democracy to serve his own course had been discussed in my first post where I did comment on the pitfalls of democracy where its lack of a clear definition had led to the exploitation of democracy, however it should be noted that democracy in Germany then was a very weak one and the fundamental reason why Hitler could easily dominate the political arena was because of the fact that Germany was in tatters then, weakened by economic sanctions by the West, the costs of WW1, the low morale of people such that Hitler, through his charisma, appealed to the majority who thought him as Germany's only hope etc. This was also crucial for Hitler's rise through the ranks and finally emerged as the Chancellor of Germany. Here, I do agree with you that those in power could easily change the country's political system such that a once fully democratic country could be converted to a fascist state under Nazi control, but that was the past and circumstances as well as context as changed. Back then, the context was in favour of Hitler where there was no constitutional law and the military as well as other independent organizations were already in tatter-hoods because of WW1, or in other words, Hitler manipulated and exploited "democracy" in times of turbulence and chaos in that there was no one then that could expose him.
However, this could hardly happen now as countries that are democratic are governed by a strong constitution, the people and the judiciary, as opposed to Hitler's "flawed democracy" where he had power over the "Secret Police", as well as the "Enabling Act" where he could change the constitution at well without requiring a supra-majority. Hitler's sporadic rise in power was a result of the absence of an independent opposition against him as well as his strong political backings. Hitler's rise was not attributed to the flaws of democracy, but rather to the circumstances and context.
As of now, a strong constitution is a fundamental element in any true democratic system where a supra-majority of usually 2/3 or 3/4 majority is needed in order to change a particular law/charter. However, we see that any change in the charter is unlikely as this would require almost everyone in the parliament to support the motion, including the Opposition Parties, which are present in any truly democratic nation. This could be seen from USA where after 3 centuries since the Pennsylvania Constitution was enacted, only 26 amendments had been made, reflecting on how well the status quo of political stability is preserved in a democratic country. Here, it is evident that the political status quo as well as social order will be prevalent in any democratic society as in today's democracy, it is perhaps an undeniable fact that democracy comes with a strong constitution, safeguarding the political and social status quo as well. This is the first major element of a successful democracy where when a constitution is in place, it sort of prevents the ruling government to radically alter the country's social-political and economic status quo and to limit extremism, a sad tragedy of Nazi Germany. This of course, was something not present in Hitler's Germany, where he could dictate and change the constitution at will, going against the true spirit of democracy.
At the same time, we need to see that the end of WW2, and the eventual downfall of Communist Bloc Soviet Union, it heralded the age of internationalization and democratization where countries turn legitimately democratic, adopting the usage of a powerful and strong constitution. The context of the later part of the 20th century and the advent of the 21st century had clearly crafted out a wonderful context and circumstance for democratization to take place, resulting in countries (including present day Germany) to adopt the usage of a constitution and practice democracy. It is thereby clearly evident that the tragic fate of Nazi Germany will not be repeated in history again given the rapid democratization progress in the whole world. The circumstances had clearly favoured democracy, and by bringing out a famous quote by renowned political theorist Wiliam J. Bennett "America's support for human rights and democracy is our noblest export to the world", the circumstances now is definitely favouring democracy, and perhaps, this is the reason why Democracy then and Now are diametrically opposed such that democracy is still, to date, the most successful and the most stable political system one could employ in the political arena.
Indeed, I do agree with your point, that democracy can allow the government to yield absolute power since they are vested with the mandate of the people, and exploit this power to shift the politics of the country in their own favour, but this assertion stays valid only in the past where the circumstances and context were totally different and the constitution then was very weak and unestablished too (Hitler was able to change the constitution at hand with the enabling act authorized in 1933), resulting in the case where the government makes a paradigm shift in the political arena, changing it into another political system. Ultimately though, this does not stand in today's context where the idea of having a constitution is deep-rooted and strong as well as the difficulty in changing the constitution (requiring an almost consensus between the ruling party and the opposition party) ensures the political and social stability and it is with this where I dare say that democracy in today's terms, is certainly going to ensure social and political order where the political status quo will not go radical for a long time.
Cx
Before moving on my main point of the necessity of a strong and effective Constitution, I shall first reiterate my previous post, I once again stress that democratization starts only with the end of WW2, before that the notion of democratization was something relatively unheard of. The 20th century and the advent of the 21st century saw the dominance of the Western World in World Politics, resulting in the rapid downfall of communism by the end of the 20th century, as well as the rapid rise of democracy, of which found its way to even the 3rd World Countries.
The idea of Hitler manipulating democracy to serve his own course had been discussed in my first post where I did comment on the pitfalls of democracy where its lack of a clear definition had led to the exploitation of democracy, however it should be noted that democracy in Germany then was a very weak one and the fundamental reason why Hitler could easily dominate the political arena was because of the fact that Germany was in tatters then, weakened by economic sanctions by the West, the costs of WW1, the low morale of people such that Hitler, through his charisma, appealed to the majority who thought him as Germany's only hope etc. This was also crucial for Hitler's rise through the ranks and finally emerged as the Chancellor of Germany. Here, I do agree with you that those in power could easily change the country's political system such that a once fully democratic country could be converted to a fascist state under Nazi control, but that was the past and circumstances as well as context as changed. Back then, the context was in favour of Hitler where there was no constitutional law and the military as well as other independent organizations were already in tatter-hoods because of WW1, or in other words, Hitler manipulated and exploited "democracy" in times of turbulence and chaos in that there was no one then that could expose him.
However, this could hardly happen now as countries that are democratic are governed by a strong constitution, the people and the judiciary, as opposed to Hitler's "flawed democracy" where he had power over the "Secret Police", as well as the "Enabling Act" where he could change the constitution at well without requiring a supra-majority. Hitler's sporadic rise in power was a result of the absence of an independent opposition against him as well as his strong political backings. Hitler's rise was not attributed to the flaws of democracy, but rather to the circumstances and context.
As of now, a strong constitution is a fundamental element in any true democratic system where a supra-majority of usually 2/3 or 3/4 majority is needed in order to change a particular law/charter. However, we see that any change in the charter is unlikely as this would require almost everyone in the parliament to support the motion, including the Opposition Parties, which are present in any truly democratic nation. This could be seen from USA where after 3 centuries since the Pennsylvania Constitution was enacted, only 26 amendments had been made, reflecting on how well the status quo of political stability is preserved in a democratic country. Here, it is evident that the political status quo as well as social order will be prevalent in any democratic society as in today's democracy, it is perhaps an undeniable fact that democracy comes with a strong constitution, safeguarding the political and social status quo as well. This is the first major element of a successful democracy where when a constitution is in place, it sort of prevents the ruling government to radically alter the country's social-political and economic status quo and to limit extremism, a sad tragedy of Nazi Germany. This of course, was something not present in Hitler's Germany, where he could dictate and change the constitution at will, going against the true spirit of democracy.
At the same time, we need to see that the end of WW2, and the eventual downfall of Communist Bloc Soviet Union, it heralded the age of internationalization and democratization where countries turn legitimately democratic, adopting the usage of a powerful and strong constitution. The context of the later part of the 20th century and the advent of the 21st century had clearly crafted out a wonderful context and circumstance for democratization to take place, resulting in countries (including present day Germany) to adopt the usage of a constitution and practice democracy. It is thereby clearly evident that the tragic fate of Nazi Germany will not be repeated in history again given the rapid democratization progress in the whole world. The circumstances had clearly favoured democracy, and by bringing out a famous quote by renowned political theorist Wiliam J. Bennett "America's support for human rights and democracy is our noblest export to the world", the circumstances now is definitely favouring democracy, and perhaps, this is the reason why Democracy then and Now are diametrically opposed such that democracy is still, to date, the most successful and the most stable political system one could employ in the political arena.
Indeed, I do agree with your point, that democracy can allow the government to yield absolute power since they are vested with the mandate of the people, and exploit this power to shift the politics of the country in their own favour, but this assertion stays valid only in the past where the circumstances and context were totally different and the constitution then was very weak and unestablished too (Hitler was able to change the constitution at hand with the enabling act authorized in 1933), resulting in the case where the government makes a paradigm shift in the political arena, changing it into another political system. Ultimately though, this does not stand in today's context where the idea of having a constitution is deep-rooted and strong as well as the difficulty in changing the constitution (requiring an almost consensus between the ruling party and the opposition party) ensures the political and social stability and it is with this where I dare say that democracy in today's terms, is certainly going to ensure social and political order where the political status quo will not go radical for a long time.
Cx
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Democratic nations do turn into other political systems
I would like to rebutt Chengxun's last statement that "We only see civilizations turning to democracy, and not democratic nations turning to other political systems...". According to my contextual knowledge, this is not true.
When Hilter was appointed chancellor 1933, Germany was still a democracy. However, he abused he authority. Hilter hired thugs to ensure that no one openly opposed the Nazis. He denied the rights for non-Nazi politicians when his thugs did not allow the non-Nazi politicians to enter the Kroll Opera House to oppose Hilter's proposed act. The act was passed and it allowed Hilter to gain dictatorial power. Shortly after, Nazi officals were placed in charge of local government in the various states. Hilter outlawed other political parties, effectively making the Nazi Part the sole legal political party of Germany.
From this case study, democratic nations may turn into other political systems. In Germany's case, it was from democracy to dictatorship. This is also a weakness of democracy. Since democracy allows a single political party to gain the votes of the people and to become the ruling party, it also allows a single political party to have sole control of the country. The political party is already the government, if the leader of the ruling party wanted to convert the country to a dictatorship it will just be a fairly easy task - there would be no one else powerful enough to stop him. Democracy allows the ruling party to have a lot of power, if the power is abused, there would be no higher authority to oppose them.
When Hilter was appointed chancellor 1933, Germany was still a democracy. However, he abused he authority. Hilter hired thugs to ensure that no one openly opposed the Nazis. He denied the rights for non-Nazi politicians when his thugs did not allow the non-Nazi politicians to enter the Kroll Opera House to oppose Hilter's proposed act. The act was passed and it allowed Hilter to gain dictatorial power. Shortly after, Nazi officals were placed in charge of local government in the various states. Hilter outlawed other political parties, effectively making the Nazi Part the sole legal political party of Germany.
From this case study, democratic nations may turn into other political systems. In Germany's case, it was from democracy to dictatorship. This is also a weakness of democracy. Since democracy allows a single political party to gain the votes of the people and to become the ruling party, it also allows a single political party to have sole control of the country. The political party is already the government, if the leader of the ruling party wanted to convert the country to a dictatorship it will just be a fairly easy task - there would be no one else powerful enough to stop him. Democracy allows the ruling party to have a lot of power, if the power is abused, there would be no higher authority to oppose them.
Why democracy stands out?
With regard to aohui's views that democracy relative to socialism, there is still ground to argue against his points.
Firstly, we have to see that democracy relative to other political systems, will still stand out the most with regard to the amount of equal opportunities given to men, the promise of having a say in the political arena as well as the idea of allowing the collective interests of the majority to be fulfilled by the government, democracy will henceforth prevent rebellions against the government, protecting the political and societal status quo since it is based on the assumption that the government is vested upon the mandate of the people and thus, legitimized by the society. Socialism relies on the pure assumption that the government is pure and uncorrupted, as there is absolutely no way where the people of the society can act as a counterbalance to the government's overwhelming power.
Indeed, you had mentioned of the idea of delegates representing the Chinese community and reflecting the people's interests to the government is a way for the Chinese government to get in touch with the society, we have to see that it is impossible for the Chinese government to work accordingly to all interests of the people given the fact that the notion of mutual consensus among the collective entity of people in a society is an impossible feat to achieve and at the end of the day, the government is still free to choose selectively the policies they can carry out at their own discretion with no counter-power by the people proves that the government is still omnipotent.
Next, the reason why we see a peaceful and stable society in China/other socialist states is ultimately due to the relatively clean image of the CCP as well as the efficiency of the Chinese government. My question to you is that "Will the future government be that efficient? Will it be that clean with no counter-power to balance their power?" Indeed, we see that China's relatively calm and stable society is due to the government's efficiency, but unfortunately this scene is unlikely to last for long once there is a paradigm shift in the power-politics of China where the people who have limited power over the political arena, are powerless against the new regime. And when this happens, political and social stability will henceby be a huge question once again for China.
This can be supported by the paradigm shift in power from Stalin to Nikita Khrushchev, who during the end of Stalin's regime, carried out a series of "De-stalinization" which resulted in a drastic shift in the economic direction, sparking off a series of protests and wide political instability, of which subsequently resulted in the forced retirement of Khrushchev by a toned-down internal rebellion of the Socialist State Party.
Ultimately, socialism relies on the assumption that the government will always be pure, clean and efficient and with no civilians acting as a counter-power to balance their power, it is inevitable for socio-political instability to take place in an event of a dynamic shift in power politics as brought up earlier.
Here, we need to see that democracy may be flawed in certain aspects theoretically, but it is perhaps the best which we can get from any political systems that had hitherto been carried out as democracy, though promotes the "Tyranny of the majority", is still the best way of governance as it means that the government's mandate is at the very least supported by the majority entity of the population, meaning that there will be a little chance for rebellions/revolutions to take place. A famous quote by Winston Churchhill further exemplifies this fact in that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Ultimately, we see that democracy has its own flaws, but relative to other political systems, there is no doubt that this political system is still the best out there.
It should also be noted that democracy had hitherto been considered the most stable form of governance as seen from an almost zero figure of democracies having major political/societal revolutions since the advent of WW2. It is in fact amazing that with WW2, We only see civilizations turning to democracy, and not democratic nations turning to other political systems.
Cx
Firstly, we have to see that democracy relative to other political systems, will still stand out the most with regard to the amount of equal opportunities given to men, the promise of having a say in the political arena as well as the idea of allowing the collective interests of the majority to be fulfilled by the government, democracy will henceforth prevent rebellions against the government, protecting the political and societal status quo since it is based on the assumption that the government is vested upon the mandate of the people and thus, legitimized by the society. Socialism relies on the pure assumption that the government is pure and uncorrupted, as there is absolutely no way where the people of the society can act as a counterbalance to the government's overwhelming power.
Indeed, you had mentioned of the idea of delegates representing the Chinese community and reflecting the people's interests to the government is a way for the Chinese government to get in touch with the society, we have to see that it is impossible for the Chinese government to work accordingly to all interests of the people given the fact that the notion of mutual consensus among the collective entity of people in a society is an impossible feat to achieve and at the end of the day, the government is still free to choose selectively the policies they can carry out at their own discretion with no counter-power by the people proves that the government is still omnipotent.
Next, the reason why we see a peaceful and stable society in China/other socialist states is ultimately due to the relatively clean image of the CCP as well as the efficiency of the Chinese government. My question to you is that "Will the future government be that efficient? Will it be that clean with no counter-power to balance their power?" Indeed, we see that China's relatively calm and stable society is due to the government's efficiency, but unfortunately this scene is unlikely to last for long once there is a paradigm shift in the power-politics of China where the people who have limited power over the political arena, are powerless against the new regime. And when this happens, political and social stability will henceby be a huge question once again for China.
This can be supported by the paradigm shift in power from Stalin to Nikita Khrushchev, who during the end of Stalin's regime, carried out a series of "De-stalinization" which resulted in a drastic shift in the economic direction, sparking off a series of protests and wide political instability, of which subsequently resulted in the forced retirement of Khrushchev by a toned-down internal rebellion of the Socialist State Party.
Ultimately, socialism relies on the assumption that the government will always be pure, clean and efficient and with no civilians acting as a counter-power to balance their power, it is inevitable for socio-political instability to take place in an event of a dynamic shift in power politics as brought up earlier.
Here, we need to see that democracy may be flawed in certain aspects theoretically, but it is perhaps the best which we can get from any political systems that had hitherto been carried out as democracy, though promotes the "Tyranny of the majority", is still the best way of governance as it means that the government's mandate is at the very least supported by the majority entity of the population, meaning that there will be a little chance for rebellions/revolutions to take place. A famous quote by Winston Churchhill further exemplifies this fact in that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Ultimately, we see that democracy has its own flaws, but relative to other political systems, there is no doubt that this political system is still the best out there.
It should also be noted that democracy had hitherto been considered the most stable form of governance as seen from an almost zero figure of democracies having major political/societal revolutions since the advent of WW2. It is in fact amazing that with WW2, We only see civilizations turning to democracy, and not democratic nations turning to other political systems.
Cx
How democracy does not result in a stable society - Weihao
As mentioned earlier, democracy depends on the voting of the people for a government they desire. However, certain political groups, in their race to obtain as many votes as possible, may change their policies to suit the majority. In such a situation, if that political group is elected, they will be a government that will represent only the majority and not the minority. This may lead to the rise of certain prejudices or conflicts between the majority and the minority if the minority feels that they are being suppressed and biased against by their government.
A case study we have discussed in class would be the conflict in Sri Lanka. The official name of Sri Lanka is the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Being a "democratic" country, they also have elections. However, due to the overwhelming number of Sinhalese as compared to the Tamils, the Sinhalese will always win. The reason of the conflict in Sri Lanka is also due to this fact, that the Tamils feel that they are not represented properly in their country. From this case study, I can conclude that democracy may not lead to a stable society if the government's policies only suit the majority.
Since democracy is based on the people, the majority may also want to exert their influence on the minority. Instead of voting for "what's best for the country", the people vote for "what's best for me". This may result in the majority exerting their "power" on the minority. This is also evident in the Sri Lanka case study.
The government elected by the people ultimately depend on the people's mindsets, hence media influence play an important role in helping to mould the people's thinking and mindsets. What is propoganda? Well, it is the art of persuading people to side a certain political party . Its main purpose could be to help emphasize certain policies of political party or to help the political party spread negative messages about another party.
When Hitler ruled Germany, he appreciated the value of propoganda. and how it was vital in ensuring his rule over Germany. He appointed Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897 - 1945) as the Minister of Propoganda and National Enlightenment. Dr Goebbels main task was to ensure that nothing offensive existed in Germany that could potentially destroy the credibility of the Nazis. Books and films that procured Nazi teachings were burned. He tried to control the lives of the German citizens as much as possible. Art, literature, music, radio and films were all controlled by the Nazis. Their propoganda was particularly successful in turning the Germans against their fellow Jewish Germans. About six million Jews were mercilessly executed.
The mindsets of the people may be influenced by propogada. In a situation like this, the people may not make the right choice due to their clouded judgement. This may lead to a situation like that of Nazi Germany.
In conclusion, democracy has certain weaknesses. It may cause politcal parties to bend their policies for the majority, allow the suppression of the minority and propoganda clouding the people's judgement. I feel that the underlying problem of democracy is "what if the people do not make the right choice". As long as people's mindset can be moulded by propoganda, an equal democracy for any country may never be achieved. Hence, I conclude that democracy does not result in a stable society because of the people's role.
A case study we have discussed in class would be the conflict in Sri Lanka. The official name of Sri Lanka is the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Being a "democratic" country, they also have elections. However, due to the overwhelming number of Sinhalese as compared to the Tamils, the Sinhalese will always win. The reason of the conflict in Sri Lanka is also due to this fact, that the Tamils feel that they are not represented properly in their country. From this case study, I can conclude that democracy may not lead to a stable society if the government's policies only suit the majority.
Since democracy is based on the people, the majority may also want to exert their influence on the minority. Instead of voting for "what's best for the country", the people vote for "what's best for me". This may result in the majority exerting their "power" on the minority. This is also evident in the Sri Lanka case study.
The government elected by the people ultimately depend on the people's mindsets, hence media influence play an important role in helping to mould the people's thinking and mindsets. What is propoganda? Well, it is the art of persuading people to side a certain political party . Its main purpose could be to help emphasize certain policies of political party or to help the political party spread negative messages about another party.
When Hitler ruled Germany, he appreciated the value of propoganda. and how it was vital in ensuring his rule over Germany. He appointed Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897 - 1945) as the Minister of Propoganda and National Enlightenment. Dr Goebbels main task was to ensure that nothing offensive existed in Germany that could potentially destroy the credibility of the Nazis. Books and films that procured Nazi teachings were burned. He tried to control the lives of the German citizens as much as possible. Art, literature, music, radio and films were all controlled by the Nazis. Their propoganda was particularly successful in turning the Germans against their fellow Jewish Germans. About six million Jews were mercilessly executed.
The mindsets of the people may be influenced by propogada. In a situation like this, the people may not make the right choice due to their clouded judgement. This may lead to a situation like that of Nazi Germany.
In conclusion, democracy has certain weaknesses. It may cause politcal parties to bend their policies for the majority, allow the suppression of the minority and propoganda clouding the people's judgement. I feel that the underlying problem of democracy is "what if the people do not make the right choice". As long as people's mindset can be moulded by propoganda, an equal democracy for any country may never be achieved. Hence, I conclude that democracy does not result in a stable society because of the people's role.
The tyranny of the majority cannot always be solved -- by Aohui
I am afraid that I cannot agree with you that the problems of democracy can always be solved. Indeed, the problem has been solved in Spain, but it is solved because the mindset of the majority has changed and they are not completely antagonistic or hostile towards the minority(in this case, the women) any more. But what if the majority are totally against the minority and their mindset is unlikely to be changed? Will the voices of the minority be heard and the problem be solved just like what happened in Spain? I'm afraid not as long as the nation is controlled and the policies are made by the majority, which is decided by the democratic election means.
You said that "(the problem) can be solved as long as the government chosen democratically has all it takes to carry it out, on one hand pursuing policies reflected by the majority population and on the other hand, safeguarding the minority rights and their ideas." But will it be so ideal? As I have mentioned above, if the government is selected by the majority and the majority is completely against the minority, the problem can never be solved.
One good example will be the Nazi Germany. At that time, the racism in Germans' mind was so strong that they thought they were absolutely superior to the Jews and they tried to eliminate this ethnic. Imagine if the Nazi Germany still exists nowadays, will the will of the Jews in the country be executed? Obviously not.
All in all, I think the tyranny of the majority in a democratic society is one of the main and most serious problems brought about by democracy that can hardly be solved. Hence, in my opinion, democracy cannot create stability.
Aohui
You said that "(the problem) can be solved as long as the government chosen democratically has all it takes to carry it out, on one hand pursuing policies reflected by the majority population and on the other hand, safeguarding the minority rights and their ideas." But will it be so ideal? As I have mentioned above, if the government is selected by the majority and the majority is completely against the minority, the problem can never be solved.
One good example will be the Nazi Germany. At that time, the racism in Germans' mind was so strong that they thought they were absolutely superior to the Jews and they tried to eliminate this ethnic. Imagine if the Nazi Germany still exists nowadays, will the will of the Jews in the country be executed? Obviously not.
All in all, I think the tyranny of the majority in a democratic society is one of the main and most serious problems brought about by democracy that can hardly be solved. Hence, in my opinion, democracy cannot create stability.
Aohui
Can democracy create stability? Depends -- By Wang Zhengli
Democracy can indeed create stability, but it largely depends on the level of education of the people involved. This is the main problem. We can see now in there is a trend to follow Western democracy in all the third world countries, whereas the ordinary people of those countries are still living in poverty and mostly uneducated. How can they participate if they don't know what democracy actually means?
According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: Physiological needs, Safety needs, Love/Belonging needs, Esteem needs and self-actualization needs. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are satisfied. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized.
For example, let's take the poor and starving people in Africa and South America. They will not be able to think of democracy as long as they don't get what they really need: food!( The lowest level of physiological needs). Do you think that political rights to vote is more important than food and shelter which is necessarily needed to survive?
Even if those people have acquired proper food and shelter, they must learn the true meaning of democracy first. This is when the role of the government becomes important, to educate and improve the people. It's quite absurd if we see that people voting without really knowing what benefits they will receive.
Who invented democracy? The Greeks! After becoming rich from sea trade and suffering terrible periods of being harshly ruled by the kings, they started to think of equal participation. The famous Greeks city-states are the most obvious examples. Democracy was born from mature thinking.
In my viewpoint, in order to apply democracy, people must be well educated and well aware of their rights. The people living in democratic society must really know how to live with democratic principles to build better society without any discriminations. Only after they know what they are going into and what benefits they will receive, can they will use their maximum effort to participate.
Stability is created as long as the society and the government produce positive results and more-or-less equal benefits to all people. The negative impact of democracy is that it is very difficult to turn around when the system is going wrong. It will be hard to detect the flaws and to repair them because the people have been sticked to one ruling system only. This is the disadvantage of democracy.
However, come back to my viewpoint, the people must know first what democracy is all about in the very first place. That is why successful examples of democracy are usually the developed and prosper Western countries such as United States, England, France and Germany. We cannot make the developing countries in South America and Africa to practice democracy in the way that USA does. It will definitely not work; it will bring unrest and chaos instead because everyone thinks they are right because they have their own rights.
In conclusion, as I just mentioned above, democracy creates stability only in some particular situation which is the developed countries because the vast majority of the developed countries have most of their people well-educated and have enough money to hold a just election, or campaigns. We cannot force the developing countries to apply the democracy like some Western countries which has very loose government control.
For Maslow's hierarchy of needs, refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: Physiological needs, Safety needs, Love/Belonging needs, Esteem needs and self-actualization needs. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are satisfied. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized.
For example, let's take the poor and starving people in Africa and South America. They will not be able to think of democracy as long as they don't get what they really need: food!( The lowest level of physiological needs). Do you think that political rights to vote is more important than food and shelter which is necessarily needed to survive?
Even if those people have acquired proper food and shelter, they must learn the true meaning of democracy first. This is when the role of the government becomes important, to educate and improve the people. It's quite absurd if we see that people voting without really knowing what benefits they will receive.
Who invented democracy? The Greeks! After becoming rich from sea trade and suffering terrible periods of being harshly ruled by the kings, they started to think of equal participation. The famous Greeks city-states are the most obvious examples. Democracy was born from mature thinking.
In my viewpoint, in order to apply democracy, people must be well educated and well aware of their rights. The people living in democratic society must really know how to live with democratic principles to build better society without any discriminations. Only after they know what they are going into and what benefits they will receive, can they will use their maximum effort to participate.
Stability is created as long as the society and the government produce positive results and more-or-less equal benefits to all people. The negative impact of democracy is that it is very difficult to turn around when the system is going wrong. It will be hard to detect the flaws and to repair them because the people have been sticked to one ruling system only. This is the disadvantage of democracy.
However, come back to my viewpoint, the people must know first what democracy is all about in the very first place. That is why successful examples of democracy are usually the developed and prosper Western countries such as United States, England, France and Germany. We cannot make the developing countries in South America and Africa to practice democracy in the way that USA does. It will definitely not work; it will bring unrest and chaos instead because everyone thinks they are right because they have their own rights.
In conclusion, as I just mentioned above, democracy creates stability only in some particular situation which is the developed countries because the vast majority of the developed countries have most of their people well-educated and have enough money to hold a just election, or campaigns. We cannot force the developing countries to apply the democracy like some Western countries which has very loose government control.
For Maslow's hierarchy of needs, refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Democracy is not the only way out -- by Aohui
Democracy is indeed a very ideal and positive political system for human beings, but in my opinion, I do not agree with what Chengxun has said that " it is only democracy, which give men the equal opportunity to vote and have a say in the political arena."
Indeed, political systems that you have mentioned, such as communism, feudalism and totalitarianism, all fail to create a stable society. However, Chengxun, they are not the only political systems in the world and you seem to forget socialism.
Just look at the way China is developing. China is a socialistic state but also has a system that can ensure the voices from most of the citizens can be heard. This particular system is called the System of People's Congress (in Chinese:人民代表大会制度). In the People's Congress, representatives of different groups of people in terms of occupation, cities/provinces, ethnics etc, gather together with the leaders of the government to whom they speake for their own group of people. In this way, the government will know the situations of the citizens in such a huge country and the people's voices are heard. This System of People's Congress does not only exist in the level of the nation, but also in the level of province and city, so that people's voices can be maximally heard by the government, which then decrees certain policies in response to execute the will of people.
Facts have proved that this system is successful in China. It is undeniable that China is now one of the fastest-developing countries in the world, and the society is pretty stable and peaceful.(Please do not talk about Tibet as it is such a controversial issue that we are still not sure whose fault and responsibity it is.)
Therefore, in my opinion, democracy is not the only way out to create a stable society.(as rebuttal to Chengxun's opinion)
Aohui
Indeed, political systems that you have mentioned, such as communism, feudalism and totalitarianism, all fail to create a stable society. However, Chengxun, they are not the only political systems in the world and you seem to forget socialism.
Just look at the way China is developing. China is a socialistic state but also has a system that can ensure the voices from most of the citizens can be heard. This particular system is called the System of People's Congress (in Chinese:人民代表大会制度). In the People's Congress, representatives of different groups of people in terms of occupation, cities/provinces, ethnics etc, gather together with the leaders of the government to whom they speake for their own group of people. In this way, the government will know the situations of the citizens in such a huge country and the people's voices are heard. This System of People's Congress does not only exist in the level of the nation, but also in the level of province and city, so that people's voices can be maximally heard by the government, which then decrees certain policies in response to execute the will of people.
Facts have proved that this system is successful in China. It is undeniable that China is now one of the fastest-developing countries in the world, and the society is pretty stable and peaceful.(Please do not talk about Tibet as it is such a controversial issue that we are still not sure whose fault and responsibity it is.)
Therefore, in my opinion, democracy is not the only way out to create a stable society.(as rebuttal to Chengxun's opinion)
Aohui
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
My Stand On Democracy - Weihao
Having lived and nurtured in a democratic society, I have seen first hand its benefits. As defined earlier by Cheng Xun and Aohui, democracy allows the people to chose their rulers, and in turn determining their way of life. A quick search on Wikipedia has revealed that more than one form of democracy: Representive Democracy, Direct Democracy, Socialist Democracy, Anarchist Democracy, Iroquis Democracy, Sortition, Consensus Democracy and Interactive Democracy. Each of these forms of democracy vary in a certain way. However they all are built upon a similar concept, that is "power to the people".
In the age of individualism, in which more and more people are trying to make themselves heard, people only want to be governed by a government that will listen to them and take the required actions. According to the DPC Freedom House's ratings for 2000, 58.2% of the world's population are governed by democracy. Based on their charts and graphs, the number of people ruled by democracy would increase. Research on the internet has shown that in 1997, there were about 90 over countries ruled by democratic governments. That figure was derived in 1997, and would probably have risen over the 11 years.
Democracy should never be brought together as a whole to be consolidated, instead it should undergo continuos change and finally reaching self-transformation.
Weihao
In the age of individualism, in which more and more people are trying to make themselves heard, people only want to be governed by a government that will listen to them and take the required actions. According to the DPC Freedom House's ratings for 2000, 58.2% of the world's population are governed by democracy. Based on their charts and graphs, the number of people ruled by democracy would increase. Research on the internet has shown that in 1997, there were about 90 over countries ruled by democratic governments. That figure was derived in 1997, and would probably have risen over the 11 years.
Democracy should never be brought together as a whole to be consolidated, instead it should undergo continuos change and finally reaching self-transformation.
Weihao
Democracy---Ideal Political system rebuttals
The notion of democracy being a fundamentally incorrect political theory has been around with us for a long time, and was most prominently brought up by Thomas Jefferson, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent of the population may take away the rights of the other forty nine".
Here, we see that democracy by allowing the majority to triumph over the minority population may cause a deep segregation between the majority and the minority in a country, such that it may cause conflicts, instability in the country.
Japan, for example, is one country split into two political factions--the conservatives and the liberals, while Malaysia is one country split between the majority Malays and the minority Chinese, Hindus etc. These 2 examples are more than enough to show that democracy is not perfect and that it alienates the minorities and the majorities, such that many a time, the government's policies are in some way shifted towards the majority of the society, as seen from Malaysia where its bumiputra policies favouring Malay Malaysians were known to cause many problems throughout her tumultuous HINDRAF Rallies of which seriously rocked the state's sovereignty and her economic standing in the world. How then can one consider democracy to be effective then? How then can democracy be seen as the way to stability then?
Towards this notion, we have to understand that indeed democracy may seem to create the delusion that the majority seems to sideline the minority, resulting in deep segregation within the society, but we have to understand that democracy provides Men the equal opportunity to get his/her voice heard by voting, the equal chance of voting and having a say in the government, but it does not guarantee that the voices and the ideas of all men in a society can be heard and heeded to.
A society is not made up by an individual, but rather a collective entity of individuals, each with a different mindset, a different political ideology, a different political view, a different agenda, and it is thereby impossible to reach a full mutual consensus as what direct democracy hopes to achieve. The polymorphism of Human nature and his thinking has led to the inevitable fact that humans are unable to reach a full consensus of every matter, and it is this reason where democracy is imperfect.
As brought up by renowned neoconservative Irving Kristol who effectively stated that: Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions--It only guarantees equality of opportunities, we should understand that no political system can be able to achieve a full consensus of people in a society and through the course of history, no civilizations, no political system whatsoever can guarantee the equality of conditions and treatment of all men.
Taking a quick look at the various political systems that had surfaced in Men’s history: We see that Communism is infeasible as seen from the failures of the Bolshevik Government where the corruptions in Stalin's regimes, the extermination of the Kulaks, the "failed" five-year plan and the failures of exterminating the social hierarchy proved effectively that even communism is unable to create a truly equal society. Furthermore, the fact that Communism limits Men’s activeness in politics makes it difficult for the voices of the people in the society to be heard in the government such that in Communism, both majority and minority have limited say in the government, making it highly likely for revolutions and rebellions to triumph since the government’s power is not rested on the mandate of Men.
Feudalism, as seen from the ancient Chinese empires, which were mostly patriarchal, were unable to create equal conditions for the majority of the society, and not to say, the whole country given that the caste system then had a very structured hierarchy, making it impossible for Men to be having the equal conditions.
Totalitarianism may seem to create equal social order in the society (excluding party officials) where Men were supposedly given the same and equal conditions, but we have to see that it is still infeasible given that the people's ideas, the peoples' wishes were not heeded by the government in that the totalitarian government progresses without taking the people into consideration. The Myanmar Junta for example ignored the 1990 electorate results even though the then National League for Democracy garnered more than 50% of the votes, which is more than enough to form a government with a simple majority. Here it is evident that for totalitarianism, the voices of the people and the voices of the majority of the population are ignored where the civilians are entirely powerless politically.
As such, we see that it is only democracy, which give men the equal opportunity to vote and have a say in the political arena. Indeed, because of the fundamental nature of humans, it is impossible for the government to be able to fully fulfill the needs of every single individual within the society, and democracy, by targeting the majority collective interests of the society as it is often the best gauge to the societal attitudes of the people in the society. Democracy is the only political system that takes into account the majority’s point of views such that the government is vested upon the People's mandate, allowing societal stability as mentioned earlier. No political system can ever allow a mutual consensus among everybody in the society, but democracy at best allows the consensus of the majority to be taken in by the political sovereign.
Indeed, you had mentioned on the varying examples where the majority is not always right and it could even end up as a platform for racial segregation (as seen from USA and Malaysia), but these problems are always solved through the usage of affirmative actions where the minority rights are safeguarded. One key and recent example will be that of Spain where affirmative action had always been carried out, elevating the status of women in Spain such that the Cabinet of Spain has now more women ministers than Men. Here, we see that the loopholes of democracy is still reversible, is something that can be solved as long as the government chosen democratically has all it takes to carry it out, on one hand pursuing policies reflected by the majority population and on the other hand, safeguarding the minority rights and their ideas.
Ultimately, Democracy, though theoretically flawed in some aspects, is still the key in allowing social stability as it is the only political system that allows the collective interests of the majority population to be heard and answered by the government, giving the democratically elected government the mandate to rule the country. Democracy is still the best political system relative to other political systems, such that regardless of its flaws, its distinct nature of giving Men the equal opportunities is more than enough to say that democracy is ultimately the best political system available.
Cx
Democracy harms the stability in a society--by Aohui
Indeed,democracy is one of the most advanced and best political theories so far,but in my opinion,democracy can also create instability in some ways.
Everyone is unique and independent from others and thus it is inevitable that not all people can agree on the same political opinion or policy.There must be proposition and opposition as well as majority and minority towards an issue.As you have stated that"only the Political Party with the greatest number of votes will be given the mandate of the people to control the government for one political term",which means that only the will of the majority will be executed.In other words,democracy actually deprives the minority of their representation.This can be summarized by a phrase "tyranny of the majority".As quoted from the former president of America,"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."As the name of the phrase itself suggests,as long as the democratic election exists,the voice of the minority can never be heard and their will can never be executed.
More seriously,democracy provides the majority with the opportunity and power to take biased or discriminatory actions on the minority who they consider inferior to themselves within a country.Let's take the America as an example.From 1876 to 1965,the African-Americans were seriously and unfairly discriminated by the Americans due to the difference in skin color.However,despite the strong protests and riots by the African-Americans,the Jim Crow Laws were not abolished until 1965 because of the execution of the will of the majority.Is such a society stable? Of course not.
As such, I believe that as mentioned earlier, democracy is fundamentally wrong philosophically given its unjust nature of the "tyranny of the majority", which many a time results in serious threats to social instability.
aohui
Everyone is unique and independent from others and thus it is inevitable that not all people can agree on the same political opinion or policy.There must be proposition and opposition as well as majority and minority towards an issue.As you have stated that"only the Political Party with the greatest number of votes will be given the mandate of the people to control the government for one political term",which means that only the will of the majority will be executed.In other words,democracy actually deprives the minority of their representation.This can be summarized by a phrase "tyranny of the majority".As quoted from the former president of America,"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."As the name of the phrase itself suggests,as long as the democratic election exists,the voice of the minority can never be heard and their will can never be executed.
More seriously,democracy provides the majority with the opportunity and power to take biased or discriminatory actions on the minority who they consider inferior to themselves within a country.Let's take the America as an example.From 1876 to 1965,the African-Americans were seriously and unfairly discriminated by the Americans due to the difference in skin color.However,despite the strong protests and riots by the African-Americans,the Jim Crow Laws were not abolished until 1965 because of the execution of the will of the majority.Is such a society stable? Of course not.
As such, I believe that as mentioned earlier, democracy is fundamentally wrong philosophically given its unjust nature of the "tyranny of the majority", which many a time results in serious threats to social instability.
aohui
Definition and types of democracy--by Aohui
Well,in my opinion,there is no need to push the definition of democracy too much or too deep.We are focusing on its benefits or harms on the stability of society,after all. However,of course,we should not ignore its definition, but we can define it in a simpler way.
"Democracy" comes from the Greek words"demos",meaning "people",and"kratos",which means"rule".Literally but essentially,democracy means"people power".More specifically,as quoted from Abraham Lincoln,democracy means that the government is"of the people,for the people and by the people",which suggests that democracy is actually "ruled by people".
I agree with you that some of the democracies are theoretically correct but practically unfeasible,but not all,because democracies can be classified into two groups:direct democracy,which gives all people the right to participate in political activities,and representative democracy which means that citizens within a country elect representatives to make decisions for them.The former is infeasible in most countries because it requires full participation from those citizens that are allowed to,while the latter is feasible and is the regime which most democratic countries are exercising.
And I cannot see how the level of democracy matters a lot.As long as one is a democratic country, I should take it into consideration and there is no need to compare the levels of democracy between countries.
Aohui
"Democracy" comes from the Greek words"demos",meaning "people",and"kratos",which means"rule".Literally but essentially,democracy means"people power".More specifically,as quoted from Abraham Lincoln,democracy means that the government is"of the people,for the people and by the people",which suggests that democracy is actually "ruled by people".
I agree with you that some of the democracies are theoretically correct but practically unfeasible,but not all,because democracies can be classified into two groups:direct democracy,which gives all people the right to participate in political activities,and representative democracy which means that citizens within a country elect representatives to make decisions for them.The former is infeasible in most countries because it requires full participation from those citizens that are allowed to,while the latter is feasible and is the regime which most democratic countries are exercising.
And I cannot see how the level of democracy matters a lot.As long as one is a democratic country, I should take it into consideration and there is no need to compare the levels of democracy between countries.
Aohui
Friday, May 16, 2008
Stability in a different way---Socio-political stability
Democracy, in my opinion, does to a large extent constitute to the stability of any societies in 3 different ways of which I shall only elaborate on one aspect of stability---The political and social status quo of the society.
Firstly, we have to understand that the principle of democracy relies on the "voting and choice" of people in the society where only the Political Party with the greatest number of votes will be given the mandate of the people to control the government for one political term. In other words, the establishment of a government relies on the mutual consensus among the public in a society and the policies of a "Democratic government" have to conform to the general agreement of the society as well such that only government policies supported by the majority of the society will be implemented. It is precisely because of this principle where I dare say that democratic systems are unlikely to cause socio-political instability, riots, political revolutions as ultimately (in the case of representative democracy and consensus democracy) the power of any democratic government is vested by the mandate of the people and being a representation of the majority of the society, it is justifiable for us to effectively suggest that democracy breeds stability in the socio-political system, maintaining the political status quo in the society. Simply said, any action of the government is entirely dependent on the reaction of the people in the society such that the power of the government and its directions are balanced by the people and the society.
This idealistic concept of democracy is by far the most stable of any political theories that had surfaced insofar as its philosophies are able to achieve an equilibrium between the top-level authorities and the society where the government and the people are balanced, allowing the socio-political scene to be stable. Through past examples, we see that militarism, where force is brought in to ensure stability in the society, directly suppressing the people with force, had not worked in many cases.
Indonesia's harsh militant rule over East Timor saw the death of over 80000 Timorese but Indonesia was still unable to sustain her control over East Timor where in 1999, East Timor was formally independent from Indonesian rule. Here, it is evident that the usage of force to safeguard stability within the political and social stratas is only of short-term usage as ultimately, the usage of force may legitimized Indonesia's rule over the land, but it definitely did not rule over the hearts of the Timorese rebellions, where oppositions towards Indonesian rule, nationalism of East Timorese had risen dramatically over the 24 years of authoritarian rule by Indonesia, leading to instability in both the political scene as well as the society.
Democracy, on the other hand, is unlikely to result in such problems in that for a government to be voted in, it requires the support of the public, the consensual agreement between a majority of the society, such that the democratic government not only legitimately rules over the land, but also legitimately rules over the hearts of the public in the society. For short, democratically elected governments are highly unlikely to experience protests, rebellions, riots etc since they are voted in by the majority of the public and their policies closely follow the wishes of the majority population (Populist). The government, with the mandate of the people, will thereby be legitimized by the people and its socio-political arenas will be ensured of its long term stability.
This as such, gives us huge ground to assert that democracy necessarily creates stability in the social-political arena of as it is ultimately the very principle of democracy where the whole society is allowed to play a part in politics, that makes it possible for social-political stability with the implementation of democracy.
This, of course, is a point of my own, and it is inevitable for pit-holes to be present in this article. Please comment and post your views towards this article as well.
Cx
Firstly, we have to understand that the principle of democracy relies on the "voting and choice" of people in the society where only the Political Party with the greatest number of votes will be given the mandate of the people to control the government for one political term. In other words, the establishment of a government relies on the mutual consensus among the public in a society and the policies of a "Democratic government" have to conform to the general agreement of the society as well such that only government policies supported by the majority of the society will be implemented. It is precisely because of this principle where I dare say that democratic systems are unlikely to cause socio-political instability, riots, political revolutions as ultimately (in the case of representative democracy and consensus democracy) the power of any democratic government is vested by the mandate of the people and being a representation of the majority of the society, it is justifiable for us to effectively suggest that democracy breeds stability in the socio-political system, maintaining the political status quo in the society. Simply said, any action of the government is entirely dependent on the reaction of the people in the society such that the power of the government and its directions are balanced by the people and the society.
This idealistic concept of democracy is by far the most stable of any political theories that had surfaced insofar as its philosophies are able to achieve an equilibrium between the top-level authorities and the society where the government and the people are balanced, allowing the socio-political scene to be stable. Through past examples, we see that militarism, where force is brought in to ensure stability in the society, directly suppressing the people with force, had not worked in many cases.
Indonesia's harsh militant rule over East Timor saw the death of over 80000 Timorese but Indonesia was still unable to sustain her control over East Timor where in 1999, East Timor was formally independent from Indonesian rule. Here, it is evident that the usage of force to safeguard stability within the political and social stratas is only of short-term usage as ultimately, the usage of force may legitimized Indonesia's rule over the land, but it definitely did not rule over the hearts of the Timorese rebellions, where oppositions towards Indonesian rule, nationalism of East Timorese had risen dramatically over the 24 years of authoritarian rule by Indonesia, leading to instability in both the political scene as well as the society.
Democracy, on the other hand, is unlikely to result in such problems in that for a government to be voted in, it requires the support of the public, the consensual agreement between a majority of the society, such that the democratic government not only legitimately rules over the land, but also legitimately rules over the hearts of the public in the society. For short, democratically elected governments are highly unlikely to experience protests, rebellions, riots etc since they are voted in by the majority of the public and their policies closely follow the wishes of the majority population (Populist). The government, with the mandate of the people, will thereby be legitimized by the people and its socio-political arenas will be ensured of its long term stability.
This as such, gives us huge ground to assert that democracy necessarily creates stability in the social-political arena of as it is ultimately the very principle of democracy where the whole society is allowed to play a part in politics, that makes it possible for social-political stability with the implementation of democracy.
This, of course, is a point of my own, and it is inevitable for pit-holes to be present in this article. Please comment and post your views towards this article as well.
Cx
The Paradox of Democracy--Definitions
Discussion motion: Democracy creates stability in the society
To start off this discussion, I shall first set my definition of democracy:
Democracy as a whole, is very polymorphic in principle in that it has no clear definitions that limit the wide scope democracy can encompass of. Democracy, however, has one overarching principle---The government is empowered and legitimatized only by the majority of the people through voting.
However, as clear as it may get, this principle has been overused and overly-exploited such that countries that had endorsed it as integral in their political systems had somehow manipulated this concept to achieve its means.
Germany's Nazi Party, for example, through Hitler's charismatic oratory, had exploited the concepts of democracy, allowing Hitler to rise through ranks such that the Nazi Party became Germany's largest party, consolidating power within the state, and ultimately turning Germany into a Fascist State.
The advent of globalization and modernization has led to the increased necessity for countries to identify themselves as democratic in order to enjoy lucrative economic benefits and the establishment of trade links with superpowers. In a more recent context, the internationally recognized communist state of North Korea had even identified themselves as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but ironically, North Korea held the lowest freedom index in the Freedom House Survey as compared to communist/non-democratic nations. This goes to show the extent of which the word democracy had been exploited such that democracy no longer exists as an ideal political system per se, but rather as a means for countries to achieve international recognition via exploitation over the vague, polymorphic ideas behind democracy.
The fact that democracy can actually be manipulated and exploited of goes to show how volatile the nature of democracy is. It is precisely because of the fundamental lacking in clear concepts, clear guidelines and clear definitions of democracy that had given countries the chance of exploiting democracy to serve their own needs.
As quoted from the Freedom House Survey, while over 80% of all countries in the world identify themselves as democratic, statistics regarding the level of democracy and the level of political/civil liberties among countries are very different from one another. Singapore's democracy is democracy to, but its democracy/freedom level ranks 5 and 6 as opposed to United State's democracy/freedom level rank of 1 and 1. The clear difference highlighted the polymorphism of democracy such that at the end of the day, it may be easily generalized as being "ruled by the people", but because of the overt exploitation of democracy as well as the broadness of these "democracy" concepts, it is perhaps inevitable that while democracy may be sound in philosophy, it, when put into practice will be a muddled and exploited given its nature.
Having substantiated my points with the mentioned examples, we have to see that democracy, theoretically speaking may seek to empower the people with the mandate in deciding who to lead them, but in practice, due to the volatile and polymorphic nature of democracy and the high chances of it being exploited, such that even dictators can use democracy in their benefits, we see that democracy in fact, can lead to instability as much as it can cause stability.
Towards this point, what are your views? Is it true that democracy is theoretically correct but practically unfeasible because of its polymorphism? Should democracy be sidelined just because of its polymorphism and its unclear definitions and limits? What are the benefits --- Socio-political, economic etc, democracy can bring about? These are some vital points that we should consider before assessing on the value of democracy and whether it can bring about democracy.
At last, I shall end off with a quote from Mark Twain in response to democracy being exploited and manipulated by countries---"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."
Cx
To start off this discussion, I shall first set my definition of democracy:
Democracy as a whole, is very polymorphic in principle in that it has no clear definitions that limit the wide scope democracy can encompass of. Democracy, however, has one overarching principle---The government is empowered and legitimatized only by the majority of the people through voting.
However, as clear as it may get, this principle has been overused and overly-exploited such that countries that had endorsed it as integral in their political systems had somehow manipulated this concept to achieve its means.
Germany's Nazi Party, for example, through Hitler's charismatic oratory, had exploited the concepts of democracy, allowing Hitler to rise through ranks such that the Nazi Party became Germany's largest party, consolidating power within the state, and ultimately turning Germany into a Fascist State.
The advent of globalization and modernization has led to the increased necessity for countries to identify themselves as democratic in order to enjoy lucrative economic benefits and the establishment of trade links with superpowers. In a more recent context, the internationally recognized communist state of North Korea had even identified themselves as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but ironically, North Korea held the lowest freedom index in the Freedom House Survey as compared to communist/non-democratic nations. This goes to show the extent of which the word democracy had been exploited such that democracy no longer exists as an ideal political system per se, but rather as a means for countries to achieve international recognition via exploitation over the vague, polymorphic ideas behind democracy.
The fact that democracy can actually be manipulated and exploited of goes to show how volatile the nature of democracy is. It is precisely because of the fundamental lacking in clear concepts, clear guidelines and clear definitions of democracy that had given countries the chance of exploiting democracy to serve their own needs.
As quoted from the Freedom House Survey, while over 80% of all countries in the world identify themselves as democratic, statistics regarding the level of democracy and the level of political/civil liberties among countries are very different from one another. Singapore's democracy is democracy to, but its democracy/freedom level ranks 5 and 6 as opposed to United State's democracy/freedom level rank of 1 and 1. The clear difference highlighted the polymorphism of democracy such that at the end of the day, it may be easily generalized as being "ruled by the people", but because of the overt exploitation of democracy as well as the broadness of these "democracy" concepts, it is perhaps inevitable that while democracy may be sound in philosophy, it, when put into practice will be a muddled and exploited given its nature.
Having substantiated my points with the mentioned examples, we have to see that democracy, theoretically speaking may seek to empower the people with the mandate in deciding who to lead them, but in practice, due to the volatile and polymorphic nature of democracy and the high chances of it being exploited, such that even dictators can use democracy in their benefits, we see that democracy in fact, can lead to instability as much as it can cause stability.
Towards this point, what are your views? Is it true that democracy is theoretically correct but practically unfeasible because of its polymorphism? Should democracy be sidelined just because of its polymorphism and its unclear definitions and limits? What are the benefits --- Socio-political, economic etc, democracy can bring about? These are some vital points that we should consider before assessing on the value of democracy and whether it can bring about democracy.
At last, I shall end off with a quote from Mark Twain in response to democracy being exploited and manipulated by countries---"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."
Cx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)