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
1 comment:
Indeed,democracy is one of the most advanced and best political theories so far,but in my opinion,democracy can also create unstability 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 fouty-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 tkae 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.
In a word,I think democracy not only creates stability but also unstability.
Post a Comment