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
No comments:
Post a Comment