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
1 comment:
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 theretically 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 unviable 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.
Post a Comment