Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens have equal influence, to have an equal say, and are treated equally. The people are given the choice of how they would want their country to be run.
In modern society, one would say that democracy would be the best form of government as everyone has a voice of his own in how the country is run. This brings us to the question of whether democracy would really bring stability in a society. At this point, stability could encompass three other subdivisions – social, political and social stability.
Democracy would bring about the ‘stability’ as mentioned, because everyone is given a right to speak up for the common good. With a direction set by the people, agreed and not debated, the country would be able to progress stably, without the higher authorities making the decisions.
Social stability would be attained because of the above statements, that the people influence the very way they live in society, as they have the control in their hands. Their needs and wants are addressed and thus, they would not have disputes or discontent in this society. As such, political stability would also be achieved, as the government is in the people’s hands. With success in maintaining peace amongst the people, the political field would not be an issue for instability. As for the economic field, investors would be attracted to such a society. With the back of these investors, in a way, economic stability would be assured as well.
However, one would go against the mentioned points for stability, in light of the possible corruption of government despite the verbal promises of a democratic government. For example, lest the government still holds great power in controlling the economy, and the higher authority would have the final say in this field, no matter what the citizens have to say, they will not be influential. An example of such a ‘failed’ democratic government would be of Bangladesh.
Even so, looking at the other example – Switzerland, which practices direct democracy where as long as 1% of the electorate signs a petition, a referendum must be held, democracy still holds a stand. Enabling the people to constantly change the policies that they are dissatisfied with, without having to wait a few years, would gain the trust and respect of the people. Switzerland enjoys a stable society and where people are generally happy as they decide how they want to live. This example shows that democracy does create stability in a country.
The best form of democracy is not when it is perfect, but rather, when it is the least imperfect. It would be impossible to bring about a Utopian society whereby everything is perfect with the absence of any conflicts. With slight disputes and conflict, that is when the people can earn each other’s trust and understanding for their views, offering a chance for everyone.
As the above has mentioned, I do think that democracy brings about stability because it ensures that: there are no rifts between the people, and everyone has his say regardless of characteristics, the entire system of government is corruption free, the government is not the decision maker but the channel of the people's power, and the people are truthfully informed of what is going on.
In modern society, one would say that democracy would be the best form of government as everyone has a voice of his own in how the country is run. This brings us to the question of whether democracy would really bring stability in a society. At this point, stability could encompass three other subdivisions – social, political and social stability.
Democracy would bring about the ‘stability’ as mentioned, because everyone is given a right to speak up for the common good. With a direction set by the people, agreed and not debated, the country would be able to progress stably, without the higher authorities making the decisions.
Social stability would be attained because of the above statements, that the people influence the very way they live in society, as they have the control in their hands. Their needs and wants are addressed and thus, they would not have disputes or discontent in this society. As such, political stability would also be achieved, as the government is in the people’s hands. With success in maintaining peace amongst the people, the political field would not be an issue for instability. As for the economic field, investors would be attracted to such a society. With the back of these investors, in a way, economic stability would be assured as well.
However, one would go against the mentioned points for stability, in light of the possible corruption of government despite the verbal promises of a democratic government. For example, lest the government still holds great power in controlling the economy, and the higher authority would have the final say in this field, no matter what the citizens have to say, they will not be influential. An example of such a ‘failed’ democratic government would be of Bangladesh.
Even so, looking at the other example – Switzerland, which practices direct democracy where as long as 1% of the electorate signs a petition, a referendum must be held, democracy still holds a stand. Enabling the people to constantly change the policies that they are dissatisfied with, without having to wait a few years, would gain the trust and respect of the people. Switzerland enjoys a stable society and where people are generally happy as they decide how they want to live. This example shows that democracy does create stability in a country.
The best form of democracy is not when it is perfect, but rather, when it is the least imperfect. It would be impossible to bring about a Utopian society whereby everything is perfect with the absence of any conflicts. With slight disputes and conflict, that is when the people can earn each other’s trust and understanding for their views, offering a chance for everyone.
As the above has mentioned, I do think that democracy brings about stability because it ensures that: there are no rifts between the people, and everyone has his say regardless of characteristics, the entire system of government is corruption free, the government is not the decision maker but the channel of the people's power, and the people are truthfully informed of what is going on.
No comments:
Post a Comment