Term 2 - Democracy, does it bring stability to a country?

Democracy, as many of us identify with, is a form of goverment whereby people is "greater" than the goverment. In a democratic state, the people have the right to vote for their goverment, are granted the freedom of speech and have equal rights and opportunities. A democratic goverment usually adopts a "majority rule" concept, whereby the goverment works in favour of the majority whom has voted for them. However, does giving power to the people necessarily mean that democracy brings stability to a country? I personally feel so.

Firstly, I feel that Democracy can bring about social stability. This is because of the fact that democracy stresses on equality. For instance, during the 1960s in USA, the sense of racial segregation was strong and racism was widespread throughout the country. To exacerbate the problem, the "Jim Crow" laws, made on a racial basis limited the Black's influence in community and politics. One example is the blacks are not allowed to vote. Thus, the Black community felt that their rights and their livelihood are being compromised. This has led them to many non-violence protests such as the one made by Martin Luthur King Jr. ,who stands firmly to eradicate racism through understanding and negotiation. He also had a vision about a racist-free society whereby people of Black or White skin can call each other brothers. Today we see the US as a strong democratic country, as well as a society where multi-racial communities co-exists and interacts with each other and are treated on equal terms. Thus being treated with equality leads to a socially stable country.

Furthermore, Democracy can bring about stability in overall growth as a country. This is due to the fact that people can choose their goverment and vote them out when the goverment is undesirable. In constitutions of most democratic states, one of the sections would state that when a goverment is not operating in favor of the people, they can choose to conduct a vote out. This would cause the goverment to work well in the expectations of the people in order to keep their political influences and their jobs. For example, when a goverment is corrupt, the people can dethrone the goverment upon disatisfaction with the way the goverment cheats money from the people or their poor leadership. In Taiwan, a similar vote out was carried out on the current president Chen Shui Bian (retired with effect from 20 May, the next day)for the goverments' poor performance and the possibility of corruption amongst his family members. All three vote out initiations has failed. However, this has raised the people's awareness on how to vote wisely for their goverment and prevent corruption to happen again.Thus, deposition of goverment ensures that the goverment functions well. When the goverment functions well under the inspection of the people, stability of the country can be ensured as the goverment will improve itself when the people question their leadership.

However, Democracy cannot bring stablitity to a country in certain contexts. This is because different countries vary in terms of demographics and culture, thus implementing democracy on all groups of people might not necessarily be the best option for the stability of the nation. One example of this is Singapore. Singapore functions not as a "true blue democracy" firstly because of the fast-paced system of goverment. People do not vote for policies due to the fact that the goverment has to implement them fastly to cope with the rapid economic growth and the fast changing Singapore, in terms of demographics due to foreign migration and projects such as IR. Democracy on the other hand, does not satisfy the speed in which the goverment has to implement things. In other words, the goverment could not afford to carry out a referendum for every issue knowing that precious time would be wasted. Thus democracy cannot bring a stable growth to a country due to the nature of the country.

Also, Democracy can bring about conflicts. This is due to the freedom of speech. In Singapore, where stability is much based on racial cohesion and understanding. However, with the freedom of speech implemented on Singapore's society, the goverment fears that people will rightfully start to post racist remarks openly in public. This will cause an unprecedented damage to Singapore's thriving economy and social stability as periodically, conflicts and unrests will arise from such comments being made about the other races. Thus, maintaining a "true blue" democracy can have detrimental effects on a multi-racial society's stability as it can trigger racial conflicts.

I feel that in the long run, democracy can bring society to a country. This is because the goverment, as well as the people progresses as the democracy nurtures. For example, in Taiwan, people used to be bought off easily by fake promises and the promotion of ideologies of independence at the expanse of true development. However, in 2008's elections, there is a drastic change in the way the people view their goverment. The 2008 election saw the rise of maturity in people who can prioritize and identify with the needs of Taiwan.

One might argue that democracy can cause instability through conflicts between races. However, this is only applicable in the short term as conflicts are a process to peace. We see in USA, where a state filled with racist beliefs is transformed into a racial harmonious society. We do see conflicts between this two communities at first. As democracy suggests, people are given equal rights. Thus the two different communities set out to work step by step to reach a consensus, whereby the two can coexist in peace. Thus I agree that democracy can bring stability in the long run,on the basis that the ideal can be achieved in the long run.