"Democracy creates stability in our society."
Taking this on a more local scale, do we seriously really really believe this? As Singaporeans? Democracy in Singapore? Perhaps, though some people might want to refer to it more as a "democratic dictatorship." Whatever the case, it seems to be promoting stability in this society. Although this might seem the case, this is one of the disadvantages of democracy. As it is a system that aims to appease the majority, minorities are disregarded. This is one of the costs that a country or a society has to pay on it's route to development. Democracy implies the means through which development.
Democracy values and processes refer to peace, reconciliation, dialogue, consensus as well as intellectual and political choice. To me, this is not all, most of all, i think democracy is about power to the people, about how the general public has the most influence in decisions. Much unlike the authoritarian political systems like autocracy or the communism. Thus democracy would then act in response to the outcome of the people's choice, be it through voting, representative government or whatnot. This sort of oppression of minorities might be good in the short term, but there is a limit to this voiceless concerns can tolerate. And perhaps with time, it could evolve into a social war and a political uprising. No system is perfect. And neither is what i have said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Weel, you have more or less said everything I want to say, in fact, and I'm quite sad about it.
Could you spare me some room for my ideas?
All right then, I'll just comment on several things....
First, how far do you agree that democracy creates stability?
For me myself I don't fully agree, especially in several fields of it.
One, in democracy, election is such a fatal thing that must be held every several years, not in all case, though, yet in most cases, i have to say "yes". This election which is supposed to create a future condition that's satisfactory for the country is ironically creates a gap of time which left the governing structure of the country hollow. In my home country, back then (I know you know where, as I don't really fancy to mention its name here), I bet just before the election starts, those guys sitting at the top structure of the country is as well busy designing their next campaign rather than thinking 'bout the people....
Secondly, most adopted system of democracy is the "representative" thingy, which is in fact very fragile. By putting their power onto the hands of the so-called upper class people of the country, the upper class dudes can now change the laws as they like. Well, people still own their voices, though, but...
"WHo on earth will listen to those craps?" is the most possible reason... Back then, in my home country, the top dudes make very cool promises, one of which is "I won't allow petrol prices to rise agai during my ruling period, and the people trust him...
Now, it's all lie..(just as expeccted, though... hahah...)
So, how do ya thinkz?
I more or less agree with Yong En's opinion....
' No system is perfect ' and ' neither is what I say here '....
I agree with Kevin that thr election process is a 'fatal thing'. In democracy, many issues and problem have arouse. One major issue is the majority opprssing the minorities. This issue is clearly shown in the elections.
In the elections, the decisions made only cater for the masses. Thus there will be bound to have several oppasition supporters who will be unhappy. This shows the minorities being oppressed.
However, in some cases, the minorities may not be oppressed. For example, if opposing parties have a close fight and the results tend to be very marginal, then minority issues would be issued.Hence the minority would benefit.
I also agree with Yong En that no (democratic) system is perfect. Although democracy recognise individuals in front of the law, it is a biased system as it oppresses the minorities.....
Now, now...
I think we should focus on oen of the main topics of democracy as Mr Koh had said...
I personally think that the most important one in democracy is the amount of power given to each and every citizens and the cooperation between those with power and those without power.
Once the decision is made and the amount of power is fixed, I think we can guess what will most likely to happen in the latter.
If there is too much amount of power given to the citizens, stability is an almost impossible thing to happen. Most likely conflicts will appear as a result of superiority feeling inside each person's heart.
If the amount of power is focused too much to the government, there's high possibility that racial discrimination or majority rule will be applied.
These major problems, though, could be easily handled if good cooperation is ensured. Good cooperation in the sense that the ones to whom power is given would listen to what people have to say and ensure the satisfactory result.
Those that I have said is almost all the way contradicting the motion. Now, I'd like to give comments regarding the support for the motion. "Democracy can as well create stability in the state". Why? It's mostly because anyone get to say what they really wanted to say and democracy can ensure a bit more prevention of the sate from dicatators rather than communism or socialism. But still,there's a possibility that it'd happen and if that happens, the result will be worse as people's power is already in the hand of ruler.
Well, all in all, I'm still opposing the motion and back to the beginning, that "no system is perfect".
Adding on to kevin's point on the dictators, this clearly shows a major flaw in Democracy. Electing a dictator is a society is very problble and evident. One great example of such instances is Adolf Hitler. He may be a harsh leader but but the blame should not be on him, it should be on the people who voted for him. That shows an inmaturity in the peoples' voting decision.
However, sometimes it may not be the voters fault. In the election of a leader, we can never say whether he is truly good or the complete opposite. In his rallies he may seem like a good leader but after being pu tto power, anything goes.
Nonetheless, in the modern context, people have been well educated. This means that the people have brains to choose who they think is best.
Well, all in everything, I still oppose the motion and still beleive that there can be 'no perfect system'
Kevin, i do agree with what you are saying. About how stability within a democratic society should be achieved through equal distribution of rights and power among its citizens. Conflict does emerge if a certain party, perhaps the majority are enjoying unequal benefits as compared to the minorities, and when that is taken away from them. There would be a outcry and this unpleasantness is the beginning of conflict. Before good cooperation can come into the picture with the majorities, minorities and government. I think the most basic thing needs to be addressed. EDUCATION. With good education, citizens would then understand each and every occurrence with regard to politics and their own welfare. Being fully aware of their position in society, allows them to then cooperate better with other citizens around them.
Actually, democracy is pretty ironic in itself. It's main purpose is to allow us, the citizens freedom of choice. But within this freedom of choice, we are forced to vote a certain party or person to govern us. What if we are not happy with them? What if we have no choice but to vote a dictator, or any Tom, Dick or Harry for that matter. What freedom of choice do we have then?
Post a Comment