I would think now we should have a more lively discussion instead of long essays. Basically i would find that the question of whether "democracy creates stabilty in society", they would basically want us to generalise society, as perhaps communities of people living together in a same geographically bound place.
that would be my personal opinion.
as such perhaps we could tweak our points to this defination? what do you guys think?
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
Sunday, May 18, 2008
SS Discussion-3
"Democracy creates stability in society"
After looking through the previous arguements, i think that what is really important is the context of this question which we are discussing, the time, the people, the circumstances as well as the many other factors.
For example, we are all using different examples from different societies in this discussion, i feel that this is not very accurate. Singapore, Parkistan and Taiwan has major differences in their societies, so applying the idea of democracy in this 3 different countries and using the result to argue our way round definitely would not get us anywhere.
Furthermore, there are certain assumptions made. For example, it is assumed that people might all be illterate and that they might in turn choose the wrong path for the country should they be given the right to an uneducated vote. Also, it is assumed that there is a possibility of a unbiased patriotic person to choose a leader, even so, would his attributes be credible amongst the citizens. Compare an ruler who is average in terms of governing skills but is loved by his people and a ruler who is a lot of times more effecient but is hated by his people. Popularity does play a major role in the success of the ruler.
Taking the example of Chen Shui Bian, do we bash all form of democratically elected leader from one failure? If that is the case, is there any case of perfect system? And i am sure there are many more failed examples of communism, dictatorship etc. I.e. USSR and China to a certain extent.
Now all that aside, my arguement is along the line of basic citizen rights. As citizens of the country, we are the ones who make up the country. If we are unable to decide what we want for ourselves, what is the point of staying in that country? Would we want our lives to be under the control of others or have a say in it at least?
Furthermore, though minority could be right in circumstance, note that the country's policy is highly dependent on the heart of its citizens. Even with the right policies but with unconvinced majority of citizens, it would not work out. Whereas wont following the majority unify the country even if the road chose would be a tougher one?
I have raised many questions and doubts, so feel free to discuss. However, i must state that due to the vagueness of the term "society" and what conditions carries in it, we should not go giving specific examples since democracy could work for some circumstances but not others, that is definitely indisputable as it is not a perfect system. We should either define a proper and specific "society" OR argue along the general lines of society and go by generalisation, instead of minute detailed, single-countried examples. I.e. just because a small part of it is wrong does not mean it is wrong, it is admittedly imperfect but could still work under many circumstances.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
After looking through the previous arguements, i think that what is really important is the context of this question which we are discussing, the time, the people, the circumstances as well as the many other factors.
For example, we are all using different examples from different societies in this discussion, i feel that this is not very accurate. Singapore, Parkistan and Taiwan has major differences in their societies, so applying the idea of democracy in this 3 different countries and using the result to argue our way round definitely would not get us anywhere.
Furthermore, there are certain assumptions made. For example, it is assumed that people might all be illterate and that they might in turn choose the wrong path for the country should they be given the right to an uneducated vote. Also, it is assumed that there is a possibility of a unbiased patriotic person to choose a leader, even so, would his attributes be credible amongst the citizens. Compare an ruler who is average in terms of governing skills but is loved by his people and a ruler who is a lot of times more effecient but is hated by his people. Popularity does play a major role in the success of the ruler.
Taking the example of Chen Shui Bian, do we bash all form of democratically elected leader from one failure? If that is the case, is there any case of perfect system? And i am sure there are many more failed examples of communism, dictatorship etc. I.e. USSR and China to a certain extent.
Now all that aside, my arguement is along the line of basic citizen rights. As citizens of the country, we are the ones who make up the country. If we are unable to decide what we want for ourselves, what is the point of staying in that country? Would we want our lives to be under the control of others or have a say in it at least?
Furthermore, though minority could be right in circumstance, note that the country's policy is highly dependent on the heart of its citizens. Even with the right policies but with unconvinced majority of citizens, it would not work out. Whereas wont following the majority unify the country even if the road chose would be a tougher one?
I have raised many questions and doubts, so feel free to discuss. However, i must state that due to the vagueness of the term "society" and what conditions carries in it, we should not go giving specific examples since democracy could work for some circumstances but not others, that is definitely indisputable as it is not a perfect system. We should either define a proper and specific "society" OR argue along the general lines of society and go by generalisation, instead of minute detailed, single-countried examples. I.e. just because a small part of it is wrong does not mean it is wrong, it is admittedly imperfect but could still work under many circumstances.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Saturday, May 17, 2008
I would like to clarify on my previous post, as i fear that chester has misunderstood what i was trying to say. When i spoke about the majority voting for a policy, i was trying to bring across
the point that firstly, the people may be more concerned with what may benefit them, rather than what may benefit the country.
For example, if there was a policy that completely shut off all foreigners to Singapore, would the majority vote for it? I think they would, as it would decrease the stiff competition experienced here by locals when competing for jobs. In this case, would this really be good for the country? It would affect many aspects, such as development in science, marketing schemes etc, as we lose the foreign talent.
In the above case, it would result in a decline for the country, as it stubbornly refuses to hire outside help. Singapore has a similar situation to this, as more and more locals are complaining about foreigners taking up jobs. Thus, this could be a good example to look at.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
the point that firstly, the people may be more concerned with what may benefit them, rather than what may benefit the country.
For example, if there was a policy that completely shut off all foreigners to Singapore, would the majority vote for it? I think they would, as it would decrease the stiff competition experienced here by locals when competing for jobs. In this case, would this really be good for the country? It would affect many aspects, such as development in science, marketing schemes etc, as we lose the foreign talent.
In the above case, it would result in a decline for the country, as it stubbornly refuses to hire outside help. Singapore has a similar situation to this, as more and more locals are complaining about foreigners taking up jobs. Thus, this could be a good example to look at.
Chia Chen Wei (7) 3B
Thursday, May 15, 2008
SS blog discussion
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
The previous posts were definitely enlightening. I would now pick on points in the previous posts to support and rebut. Society as haozhi defined, is ever changing in every country and I shall be linking democracy, stability and society together.
Democracy as jinfu has said, gives the citizens, the people an opportunity to voice their thoughts. It allows them to suggest implementations of various policies like examples of social advocacy amongst our midst, this is all done by kind-hearted citizens. Democracy defined as a freedom of speech is indeed important to a country for it to survive without riots. Democracy is a unifying form of governance that involves the whole country to decide on the leaders for the country example through the form of voting.
In my opinion, i would be for the fact that democracy creates stability in a society. However, i would also attempt to support chen wei's argument. Freedom of speech is like giving people a voice to speak, allow their thoughts to be heard. In singapore, a small country with four races, depriving certain ethnic groups of voting rights would certainly be 'suicidal' for Singapore. The next thing that would happen is that the country would be split into 4groups going head on into each other with riots and the country would basically disintegrate.
If other forms of government are practised in Singapore, let me illustrate the results. As for dictatorship, let's say a malay leader emerges. Won't everyone view him with a slanted perspective? For the other ethnic groups like the Chinese and Tamils, they would immediately make their complaints heard. A malay leader would also be naturally bias for the malays. Favouring one race over the other is sending a direct provocative message to the other three pillars of Singapore: Chinese, Tamils and Eurasians. I believe within a short period of time, riots would be inevitable. Democracy helps prevent this from happening and ensures stability. Although our president is not Chinese, however, we are allowed to make our voices heard and any grievances would be addressed by the government.
I would also like to rebut Chen Wei's point about what if majority of the society vote for something negative. Firstly, we are assuming that the society is flawed in this situation. Which country is corrupted till a point that actually more than half of the society would vote for something not advisable for the country. The quote is "what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?" this point is definitely worth rebutting and makes unsupported assumptions that the nation's citizens are all corrupted or illiterate. In Singapore's point of view, that is clearly not the case. Our government has a reputation of being among the least corrupt countries present throughout the world. Our system of voting has also not brought us any problems so far.
Developing on Haozhi's point that there would be opposition parties in a democratic form of government also ensures continual progress and improvement of the nation's political ideals and policies ensuring stability in the society and harmonious living among the citizens in the country. These opposition parties serve to 'balance' out the government's policies and making them ideal for us citizens, example delaying the GST hike etc.
Democracy is definitely beneficial at least to a country like Singapore. For other countries, basically everyone wants equal rights. In countries with unbalanced ratios of ethnic groups, democracy allows equal distribution of rights as the smaller ethnic group is allowed to speak up. Therefore, democracy definitely creates stability in a society. Even though representative democracy is another good idea, however, proving representative democracy is good does not disprove the fact that democracy indeed helps to create stability in society. Democracy gives each one of us the right to speak and that alone is the most important point of democracy which allows each one of us to voice out our grievances. With this continual suggestion of improvements to long standing policies, stability would grow as everyone would be pleased and our society and ultimately, country would continue its fast-paced development.
Chester Yan (5) 3B
The previous posts were definitely enlightening. I would now pick on points in the previous posts to support and rebut. Society as haozhi defined, is ever changing in every country and I shall be linking democracy, stability and society together.
Democracy as jinfu has said, gives the citizens, the people an opportunity to voice their thoughts. It allows them to suggest implementations of various policies like examples of social advocacy amongst our midst, this is all done by kind-hearted citizens. Democracy defined as a freedom of speech is indeed important to a country for it to survive without riots. Democracy is a unifying form of governance that involves the whole country to decide on the leaders for the country example through the form of voting.
In my opinion, i would be for the fact that democracy creates stability in a society. However, i would also attempt to support chen wei's argument. Freedom of speech is like giving people a voice to speak, allow their thoughts to be heard. In singapore, a small country with four races, depriving certain ethnic groups of voting rights would certainly be 'suicidal' for Singapore. The next thing that would happen is that the country would be split into 4groups going head on into each other with riots and the country would basically disintegrate.
If other forms of government are practised in Singapore, let me illustrate the results. As for dictatorship, let's say a malay leader emerges. Won't everyone view him with a slanted perspective? For the other ethnic groups like the Chinese and Tamils, they would immediately make their complaints heard. A malay leader would also be naturally bias for the malays. Favouring one race over the other is sending a direct provocative message to the other three pillars of Singapore: Chinese, Tamils and Eurasians. I believe within a short period of time, riots would be inevitable. Democracy helps prevent this from happening and ensures stability. Although our president is not Chinese, however, we are allowed to make our voices heard and any grievances would be addressed by the government.
I would also like to rebut Chen Wei's point about what if majority of the society vote for something negative. Firstly, we are assuming that the society is flawed in this situation. Which country is corrupted till a point that actually more than half of the society would vote for something not advisable for the country. The quote is "what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?" this point is definitely worth rebutting and makes unsupported assumptions that the nation's citizens are all corrupted or illiterate. In Singapore's point of view, that is clearly not the case. Our government has a reputation of being among the least corrupt countries present throughout the world. Our system of voting has also not brought us any problems so far.
Developing on Haozhi's point that there would be opposition parties in a democratic form of government also ensures continual progress and improvement of the nation's political ideals and policies ensuring stability in the society and harmonious living among the citizens in the country. These opposition parties serve to 'balance' out the government's policies and making them ideal for us citizens, example delaying the GST hike etc.
Democracy is definitely beneficial at least to a country like Singapore. For other countries, basically everyone wants equal rights. In countries with unbalanced ratios of ethnic groups, democracy allows equal distribution of rights as the smaller ethnic group is allowed to speak up. Therefore, democracy definitely creates stability in a society. Even though representative democracy is another good idea, however, proving representative democracy is good does not disprove the fact that democracy indeed helps to create stability in society. Democracy gives each one of us the right to speak and that alone is the most important point of democracy which allows each one of us to voice out our grievances. With this continual suggestion of improvements to long standing policies, stability would grow as everyone would be pleased and our society and ultimately, country would continue its fast-paced development.
Chester Yan (5) 3B
"Democracy can create stability in society"
After reading the previous 2 blog posts, i have realised both points of contention. Not attempting to repeat the previous points, i would state some of my concerns and evidence.
Firstly, i would feel that the term 'society' in the question requires to be defined. We should be defining this term, a matured developed society, or a society just breaking free from dictatorship or colonialism etc. This would indeed be important as in the 2 previous arguments stated by Chen Wei and Jinfu, it is evident that both of them have points that are suited to different societies, quoting examples from different times.
However, my base line would be that Democracy do indeed help create stability in society. Democracy is a political system in which the government is chosen and elected by the people themsevles, hence the term 'popular government'. In current context, it is often understood by a system of where the majority rules, however it still requires a check and balance.
Hence, the developement of opposition parties. At this point of time, i would like to state a fundemental benefit of a democratic society - it pushes the country to develop. In a democratic society such as Singapore, there is a presence of opposition parties which keeps the government in change and prevent our current political system to develop into aristocracy and etc. The friendly and positive competition drives forth the fact that the society would not regress or stay stagnant at any particular point.
Although what kind of societies gets tie into the question, it is still clear that democracy still benefit any kind of society. Bringing in the example of Pakistan, Musharaf government intends to bring in the ideal state of democracy to curb and permanently stop the continual violence in the nation. As said, only through transparent, free, fair can democratic rule be implemented, and the violence would thus be able to be slowly stopped.
Having a democratic society is beneficial to such a conflicting country, as often the stem factor of any conflict is the disproportion of treatment and benefits. With the implementation of democracy, slowly the state would be on the right route to progression. Although the start could be slow, but there would be an exponential growth and development for the countries if democracy is able to hold out.
As such, to me that one strong point against democray would be the factor of time. The question does not bring in the factor of time, however we should be using it nonetheless as a short term and long term scale of the benefits of democracy and check if democracy is truly able to promote stability.
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
After reading the previous 2 blog posts, i have realised both points of contention. Not attempting to repeat the previous points, i would state some of my concerns and evidence.
Firstly, i would feel that the term 'society' in the question requires to be defined. We should be defining this term, a matured developed society, or a society just breaking free from dictatorship or colonialism etc. This would indeed be important as in the 2 previous arguments stated by Chen Wei and Jinfu, it is evident that both of them have points that are suited to different societies, quoting examples from different times.
However, my base line would be that Democracy do indeed help create stability in society. Democracy is a political system in which the government is chosen and elected by the people themsevles, hence the term 'popular government'. In current context, it is often understood by a system of where the majority rules, however it still requires a check and balance.
Hence, the developement of opposition parties. At this point of time, i would like to state a fundemental benefit of a democratic society - it pushes the country to develop. In a democratic society such as Singapore, there is a presence of opposition parties which keeps the government in change and prevent our current political system to develop into aristocracy and etc. The friendly and positive competition drives forth the fact that the society would not regress or stay stagnant at any particular point.
Although what kind of societies gets tie into the question, it is still clear that democracy still benefit any kind of society. Bringing in the example of Pakistan, Musharaf government intends to bring in the ideal state of democracy to curb and permanently stop the continual violence in the nation. As said, only through transparent, free, fair can democratic rule be implemented, and the violence would thus be able to be slowly stopped.
Having a democratic society is beneficial to such a conflicting country, as often the stem factor of any conflict is the disproportion of treatment and benefits. With the implementation of democracy, slowly the state would be on the right route to progression. Although the start could be slow, but there would be an exponential growth and development for the countries if democracy is able to hold out.
As such, to me that one strong point against democray would be the factor of time. The question does not bring in the factor of time, however we should be using it nonetheless as a short term and long term scale of the benefits of democracy and check if democracy is truly able to promote stability.
Quek Hao Zhi (21)
3B
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
SS blog Discussion-2
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
In my opinion, Democracy does not create stability. In fact, this system sometimes causes instability. Although many countries have this system, we cannot assume that it is the main key to a stable society. I will rebut the policies of certain types of democracy, occasionally making references to Jin Fu’s previous post. Firstly, let us view a hypothetical situation.
In an underdeveloped nation, let us refer to it as nation X. Nation X works on the concept of democracy, and has many political parties. Each promise many things for the people, but there is one that clearly stands above the rest. This party’s policies’ are grand, and will benefit the country greatly. However, the people, who are generally illiterate and do not have a good grasp of how policies work in countries, may not vote for the party. They may, instead be attracted by the other parties, who have policies that are imperfect but more appealing to the common citizen.
Jin Fu stated, “People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country”. But as seen above, what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?
The common citizen would not be able to choose what is best for the nation this way. In fact, many voters may be uninterested in policies of the nation, and may throw or waste his vote. This would result to an inaccurate representation of what the general public really wants. Another scenario would be that the policy is so complicated to the extent that many of the voters cannot understand it. If this is so, then how are they to vote on the issue? This would just result with many voters getting puzzled with the policy and would not know how to respond to it.
In order to stop voters from not voting, governments tend to carry out the policy of “compulsory voting”. Every citizen is forced to vote, and this goes against the whole idea of democracy, which is to emphasize the idea of freedom.
The common solution to this would be Representative democracy, where government officials are selected by the people to represent them. However, the representatives would have to be elected by the people, and would have to go through the flawed process of voting. The earlier paragraphs reflect the result of voting.
Take the example of Taiwan. In a previous occasion, Chen Shui Bian was shot. Firstly, it reflects on the fact that the country can descend into chaos when there is an attempted assassination. Secondly, it also reflects on how democracy may not be the best government. In the years that Chen Shui Bian took charge, the country’s economy suffered terrible losses, and the people were unhappy with the choices that he made. This shows that the majority vote is not always correct.
Popularity does not usually reflect the fact that the person elected is the best person for the job. A simple example can be seen in the Primary School classroom. When the teacher asks for nominations for the monitor, it is likely that the immature kids will vote someone who is funny, popular, ignoring the most important trait of all, the trait of good leadership and qualities of a leader.
In this case, it would be better for the teacher to pick who she knows is the most suited to be the monitor. However, we are of course assuming that the teacher is not biased towards any student.
In my opinion, the person most suited to the job should rise to the challenge. He/ She should be either chosen by an unbiased, wise leader of the country, and lead the country to glory. The important decisions should be done and handled by he or she. In the rare event that this person is corrupt with power, he or she will simply be replaced with someone new. This is similar to the concept of dictatorship, and I feel that it is a better choice rather than Democracy, as the leader can only be replaced by someone who is more efficient.
Chia Chen Wei
3B
(7)
In my opinion, Democracy does not create stability. In fact, this system sometimes causes instability. Although many countries have this system, we cannot assume that it is the main key to a stable society. I will rebut the policies of certain types of democracy, occasionally making references to Jin Fu’s previous post. Firstly, let us view a hypothetical situation.
In an underdeveloped nation, let us refer to it as nation X. Nation X works on the concept of democracy, and has many political parties. Each promise many things for the people, but there is one that clearly stands above the rest. This party’s policies’ are grand, and will benefit the country greatly. However, the people, who are generally illiterate and do not have a good grasp of how policies work in countries, may not vote for the party. They may, instead be attracted by the other parties, who have policies that are imperfect but more appealing to the common citizen.
Jin Fu stated, “People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country”. But as seen above, what if what they want is unadvisable for the country?
The common citizen would not be able to choose what is best for the nation this way. In fact, many voters may be uninterested in policies of the nation, and may throw or waste his vote. This would result to an inaccurate representation of what the general public really wants. Another scenario would be that the policy is so complicated to the extent that many of the voters cannot understand it. If this is so, then how are they to vote on the issue? This would just result with many voters getting puzzled with the policy and would not know how to respond to it.
In order to stop voters from not voting, governments tend to carry out the policy of “compulsory voting”. Every citizen is forced to vote, and this goes against the whole idea of democracy, which is to emphasize the idea of freedom.
The common solution to this would be Representative democracy, where government officials are selected by the people to represent them. However, the representatives would have to be elected by the people, and would have to go through the flawed process of voting. The earlier paragraphs reflect the result of voting.
Take the example of Taiwan. In a previous occasion, Chen Shui Bian was shot. Firstly, it reflects on the fact that the country can descend into chaos when there is an attempted assassination. Secondly, it also reflects on how democracy may not be the best government. In the years that Chen Shui Bian took charge, the country’s economy suffered terrible losses, and the people were unhappy with the choices that he made. This shows that the majority vote is not always correct.
Popularity does not usually reflect the fact that the person elected is the best person for the job. A simple example can be seen in the Primary School classroom. When the teacher asks for nominations for the monitor, it is likely that the immature kids will vote someone who is funny, popular, ignoring the most important trait of all, the trait of good leadership and qualities of a leader.
In this case, it would be better for the teacher to pick who she knows is the most suited to be the monitor. However, we are of course assuming that the teacher is not biased towards any student.
In my opinion, the person most suited to the job should rise to the challenge. He/ She should be either chosen by an unbiased, wise leader of the country, and lead the country to glory. The important decisions should be done and handled by he or she. In the rare event that this person is corrupt with power, he or she will simply be replaced with someone new. This is similar to the concept of dictatorship, and I feel that it is a better choice rather than Democracy, as the leader can only be replaced by someone who is more efficient.
Chia Chen Wei
3B
(7)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
SS Discussion-1
"Democracy creates stability in a society"
Democracy is currently one of the most popular form of political systems in the world. Though there might not be many pure democratic systems around, more or less every other system carries a slight form of it at the very least in their systems, Why? Because it is one of the main keys to a stable society which is peaceful and suitable for development.
But what is it that makes democracy successful in current day context? With the American civil war, breaking down of colonialism, the emphasis is having a national identity (independence) and having rights of freedom in speech and choice. People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country. It is seen as both a right and a need of each citizen, being able to vote for what they wish to see instead of being ignorantly kept in the dark. People have learnt from past experiences (British colonial rule) that they should never leave their country totally in the hands of others.
Basically, every representative group's say in the country's direction and development needs to be heard to satisfy at least the majority of the modern day society. Democracy is able to achieve just that.
Democracy provides a platform for people to voice opinions and gain feedback and it widens tha range of choices and the freedom to express them for every citizen. The generated point of view is therefore larger and caters to a bigger spectrum of needs. Though all might not be met, all can be considered and the majority is satisfied at the end of a day with a viable solution. It gives the people the right to choose their OWN style of life and their OWN leaders to rule them accordingly to how they wish to be ruled. When the majority is satisfied that they are heard and their needs are met, there would be no significant uproar in society and stability thus ensues socially.
Politically, democracy allows a fairer vote of power as the power of the vote is from each liable citizen in the country. The leaders are therefore, voted through popularity based on their credibility, campaign and most importantly the respect and attention they earn from the people. Henceforth, this form of election is alot fairer than a election by a council as it firstly provides a larger group of people to vote which validates the polls due to increased sample size, more importantly, it is able to link directly to the people under effect of the campaigns, which is the people of the country. Thus, a democratic election is able to gain acceptance and popularity of the country's citizens and create content and stability amongst them as the majority's political opinion and power has been expressed the way they want to.
Economically, it provides a larger and more open market ground for more investment, entrprenuership ventures as well as exportations. It increases a flow of trade in the country as the political tension is minimal or resolved, therefore tension is insignificant to restrict any form of economic activity to to create a form of dominance in the economic field in order to maintain political power. There is freedom and space to explore, therefore giving more opportunities to people, allowing rapid development along without the implications/restrictions/binding of the political system or social opinions, therefore it is easier to reach a stable and strong economic status.
Furthermore, looking at past failures of dictatorship and communism, I.e. the Soviet Union, whereby the dictator was unable to tolerate other points of view even when there was major protest against it. It shows the lack of sight and scope of this form of system, something democracy is actually build on. In timed context, it could have worked in the past whereby people's mindset were more conservative and obedient, but with the ongoing strength of the campaign of freedom of choice/speech etc. democracy definitely is the strongest pillars present in today's world to keep the ceilings of the country in place, whereas all the other systems act as sub-supporting pillars in varying circumstances to meet different less major needs. In all they supplement the central pillar of democracy in order to create stability in society.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Democracy is currently one of the most popular form of political systems in the world. Though there might not be many pure democratic systems around, more or less every other system carries a slight form of it at the very least in their systems, Why? Because it is one of the main keys to a stable society which is peaceful and suitable for development.
But what is it that makes democracy successful in current day context? With the American civil war, breaking down of colonialism, the emphasis is having a national identity (independence) and having rights of freedom in speech and choice. People now wish to grasp hold of their own lives and wants their voices heard during policy making of their own country. It is seen as both a right and a need of each citizen, being able to vote for what they wish to see instead of being ignorantly kept in the dark. People have learnt from past experiences (British colonial rule) that they should never leave their country totally in the hands of others.
Basically, every representative group's say in the country's direction and development needs to be heard to satisfy at least the majority of the modern day society. Democracy is able to achieve just that.
Democracy provides a platform for people to voice opinions and gain feedback and it widens tha range of choices and the freedom to express them for every citizen. The generated point of view is therefore larger and caters to a bigger spectrum of needs. Though all might not be met, all can be considered and the majority is satisfied at the end of a day with a viable solution. It gives the people the right to choose their OWN style of life and their OWN leaders to rule them accordingly to how they wish to be ruled. When the majority is satisfied that they are heard and their needs are met, there would be no significant uproar in society and stability thus ensues socially.
Politically, democracy allows a fairer vote of power as the power of the vote is from each liable citizen in the country. The leaders are therefore, voted through popularity based on their credibility, campaign and most importantly the respect and attention they earn from the people. Henceforth, this form of election is alot fairer than a election by a council as it firstly provides a larger group of people to vote which validates the polls due to increased sample size, more importantly, it is able to link directly to the people under effect of the campaigns, which is the people of the country. Thus, a democratic election is able to gain acceptance and popularity of the country's citizens and create content and stability amongst them as the majority's political opinion and power has been expressed the way they want to.
Economically, it provides a larger and more open market ground for more investment, entrprenuership ventures as well as exportations. It increases a flow of trade in the country as the political tension is minimal or resolved, therefore tension is insignificant to restrict any form of economic activity to to create a form of dominance in the economic field in order to maintain political power. There is freedom and space to explore, therefore giving more opportunities to people, allowing rapid development along without the implications/restrictions/binding of the political system or social opinions, therefore it is easier to reach a stable and strong economic status.
Furthermore, looking at past failures of dictatorship and communism, I.e. the Soviet Union, whereby the dictator was unable to tolerate other points of view even when there was major protest against it. It shows the lack of sight and scope of this form of system, something democracy is actually build on. In timed context, it could have worked in the past whereby people's mindset were more conservative and obedient, but with the ongoing strength of the campaign of freedom of choice/speech etc. democracy definitely is the strongest pillars present in today's world to keep the ceilings of the country in place, whereas all the other systems act as sub-supporting pillars in varying circumstances to meet different less major needs. In all they supplement the central pillar of democracy in order to create stability in society.
Jin Fu (14) 3B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)