Winston Churchill famously said that “democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others have been tried.” From such a statement, we would be given a fairly negative impression of democracy. But, what exactly, is democracy, and given the apparent failings of all the other political philosophies and forms of government, can democracy truly create stability in a country?
In my opinion, I feel that democracy truly is able to create stability to some extent. However, let us define some key concepts first. Firstly, a democracy, will be defined as a philosophy of government, in which the citizens are invested with sovereign power, and such power is exercised either directly or indirectly through a system of representation. Next, for the purposes of this essay, we will narrow down the types of stability to just political and social stability, and we will take a look at how democracy can create such forms of stability.
Firstly, it can be easily seen throughout the world, that democracy is quite capable of creating political stability. Democracy, because of its nature, allows the majority to pick and choose their party, in representative politics, and also allows the citizens to influence the decisions made about the country. Having such liberties and freedom to vote for the representative who will best embody their interests, or having the power vested in them to make changes that will benefit themselves, or at least, the majority, will generally create stability. This will minimize unhappiness among the population at large as the people will be able to decide what suits them best. Furthermore, democracies do facilitate discussion and debate among people or their representatives, and is open to criticism. The provision of such civil freedom and liberties, as well as providing contrasting viewpoints and allowing for political opposition, do contribute to political stability. Democracy creates avenues for people to air their opinions and to act on what they believe, and does not suppress opinions on certain matters of governance, and thus helps generate stability.
Next, social stability can be created by the use of democracy as a philosophy of government. Democracy can allow citizens political freedom, and at the same time, allow them to shape their own lives and participate in the decision-making process. Democracy is one of the few and only philosophies that afford people such liberties and freedom. As a result, there would be much less oppression and unhappiness in general, and unrest would be minimal. Looking at the issue from another point of view, citizens have the right to choose their government or their representatives, and it if the government wishes to retain power, it will have to provide what the general population wants and needs, and agree with the general populace’s ideas and wants. The government has to initiate schemes and ensure that the people are happy, and has to ensure that the economy is stable and that there is minimal unrest in the country, and hence there will be social stability of a sort.
Furthermore, democratic methods of governance can also perpetuate a positive cycle of improvement. People who have such civil liberties and political freedom as democracy affords will be better able and encouraged to press for the improvement of their opportunities, socially, economically et cetera. The space provided for dissent and opposition, as well as debate will also provide new ways for expressing opinion and provide a counterbalance and contrasting viewpoint.
Many democratic countries are counted as countries with advanced human development. It can also be seen that democracy is able to create political and social stability in a number of ways. However, such advanced human development also requires several key institutions for democratic governing, such as an independent electoral system and a good system of representation, which still remains a key challenge for many countries, such as certain African countries. There is also the problem of the “tyranny of the majority”, which is when the majority, possibly and ethnic or religious majority, oppresses a minority group through use of democracy, by choosing a more advantageous position for themselves. An example of this would be the Irish conflict. Most governments have tried to tackle this problem by also taking into account minority rights, and protecting them constitutionally.
Democracy is indeed quite capable of ensuring political and social stability in a given country, and to improve our human living conditions, we should all look to the institutions of our state, in order to bring the benefits that democracy offers to our homeland.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Does democracy bring about more stability?
Over the past two decades, a democratic revolution has been sweeping the world, starting in Latin America, then spreading through Eastern Europe and most recently across Africa. According to the research organization Freedom House, 117 of the world’s 191 countries are considered democratic. This is a vast increase from even a decade ago. Over the past two centuries, the rise of constitutional forms of government has been closely associated with peace, social stability and rapid socio-economic development. Democratic countries have been more successful in living peacefully with their neighbors, educating their citizens, liberating human energy and initiative for constructive purposes in society, economic growth and wealth generation.
Inspite of its enormous contribution to social development, the process responsible for the emergence and successful adaptation of democratic institutions in society is not yet well understood. For every success, there are instances in which the introduction of democratic institutions has failed or quickly reverted to authoritarian forms of government. A study of the relationship between the rise of democratic institutions and the development of other aspects of society may help us better understand and more effectively harness the power of democracy.
Most studies of the origin of democracy focus on one or a number of important factors and circumstances that seem to be associated with its emergence. This paper argues for a more comprehensive approach that views all the contributing factors as expressions of a more fundamental process of change in the society. It is this process that we must understand, if society is to acquire the capability to promote the successful adoption of democratic institutions in different social and cultural contexts.
A survey of nations that refer to themselves as ‘democratic’ makes it evident that the term is applied to widely divergent forms of government. There is not and may never be a single formula for what constitutes democracy. However, underlying these different forms is a common principle. Democratic governments are those in which fundamental human rights of individual citizens are protected by the collective and in which the views of the population-at-large, not just a ruling elite, are reflected in the actions of government.
The central thesis of this paper is that the rise of democratic forms of government has been the result of a revolutionary shift in the relative importance and positions accorded by society to the individual and to the collective. This shift involved a movement toward a more balanced relationship between the rights and interests of the collective and the rights and interests of individuals. It has resulted in parallel developments in the spheres of philosophy, science, religion, economics, politics, education and social culture. In the intellectual sphere it gave rise to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, in the field of religion to the Reformation, in economy to the rise of capitalism, in politics to the rise of democracy.
In order to appreciate the import and magnitude of this shift, it should be recognized that until recently the individual occupied a distinctly subordinate position in society. The dominant governing principle behind social organization was preservation of the collective and leadership by a privileged elite—military, religious or aristocratic. During the last five centuries in Western Europe a sea-change occurred which sought to create a more equal balance between the political power of the ruling elite and the rights of individuals. The most distinguishing feature of societies embracing democratic forms of government has been the heightened value given to the full development of its citizens. This paper traces the factors leading to the emergence of the value of individualism in Western Europe over five centuries. It focuses on the emergence and development of democratic political institutions in Western Europe, particularly England.
Democratic values and institutions did not arise as a direct contradiction of authoritarian forms of governance. Rather they emerged by a gradual change in the principles that governed the distribution of power in society. An oligarchy of military strength, divine right, aristocratic lineage and land gradually gave way to an oligopoly of wealthy merchants. The parliaments of the first stage were congresses of feudal lords. The parliaments of the second were assemblies of rich traders. The idea of universe human rights and freedoms which we now identify as the essence of democracy was at first cited as a justification for redistribution of power to the commercial class and only much later as a principle for extending rights and privileges to all citizens. This shift continues today in countries around the world and may not yet have reached its acme in any country.
(http://www.icpd.org/democracy/)
In my personal opinion, democracy does create stability. As is the norm however, there are two sides to this case, and there have been cases in which democracy does not fully create stability, a particular case which has been outlined and generalized by the statement “tyranny of the majority”. Let’s look at how democracy can create stability first.
Looking first at two main forms of stability, social and political stability, it is fairly evident that democracy can result in these two forms of stability. Democracy allows for contrasting viewpoints, dissent and criticism to be openly aired, and creates avenues and platforms on which such statements can be made public. As such opinion is not suppressed, and dissenters are generally allowed and encouraged, to provide checks and counterbalances, there is generally increased political stability, and the power, being vested in the masses, is not wholly tilted to suit a single political party.
Next, representative democracy allows the masses to be vested with the power to choose the person with the vision and ideologies who will best create policies that the masses feel will benefit them. Direct democracy is a, well, more direct way, with the masses actively involved in the policy-making et cetera. Thus, as the people are allowed to have control over the decision-making process, less unrest is likely, and social stability will be created. Further, democracy allows for a cycle of development to be perpetuated, as the people who have such liberties and freedom at their disposal, as a democratic method of governance will afford its citizens, should be able to push for what they feel will benefit them most.
Of course, there will be contrary examples, such as, as aforementioned, the “tyranny of the majority”. This is where the majority uses the power vested in it to overrule or trample down other minority groups present in the country, and to vote for policies which will enhance its position or solely benefit itself.
Inspite of its enormous contribution to social development, the process responsible for the emergence and successful adaptation of democratic institutions in society is not yet well understood. For every success, there are instances in which the introduction of democratic institutions has failed or quickly reverted to authoritarian forms of government. A study of the relationship between the rise of democratic institutions and the development of other aspects of society may help us better understand and more effectively harness the power of democracy.
Most studies of the origin of democracy focus on one or a number of important factors and circumstances that seem to be associated with its emergence. This paper argues for a more comprehensive approach that views all the contributing factors as expressions of a more fundamental process of change in the society. It is this process that we must understand, if society is to acquire the capability to promote the successful adoption of democratic institutions in different social and cultural contexts.
A survey of nations that refer to themselves as ‘democratic’ makes it evident that the term is applied to widely divergent forms of government. There is not and may never be a single formula for what constitutes democracy. However, underlying these different forms is a common principle. Democratic governments are those in which fundamental human rights of individual citizens are protected by the collective and in which the views of the population-at-large, not just a ruling elite, are reflected in the actions of government.
The central thesis of this paper is that the rise of democratic forms of government has been the result of a revolutionary shift in the relative importance and positions accorded by society to the individual and to the collective. This shift involved a movement toward a more balanced relationship between the rights and interests of the collective and the rights and interests of individuals. It has resulted in parallel developments in the spheres of philosophy, science, religion, economics, politics, education and social culture. In the intellectual sphere it gave rise to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, in the field of religion to the Reformation, in economy to the rise of capitalism, in politics to the rise of democracy.
In order to appreciate the import and magnitude of this shift, it should be recognized that until recently the individual occupied a distinctly subordinate position in society. The dominant governing principle behind social organization was preservation of the collective and leadership by a privileged elite—military, religious or aristocratic. During the last five centuries in Western Europe a sea-change occurred which sought to create a more equal balance between the political power of the ruling elite and the rights of individuals. The most distinguishing feature of societies embracing democratic forms of government has been the heightened value given to the full development of its citizens. This paper traces the factors leading to the emergence of the value of individualism in Western Europe over five centuries. It focuses on the emergence and development of democratic political institutions in Western Europe, particularly England.
Democratic values and institutions did not arise as a direct contradiction of authoritarian forms of governance. Rather they emerged by a gradual change in the principles that governed the distribution of power in society. An oligarchy of military strength, divine right, aristocratic lineage and land gradually gave way to an oligopoly of wealthy merchants. The parliaments of the first stage were congresses of feudal lords. The parliaments of the second were assemblies of rich traders. The idea of universe human rights and freedoms which we now identify as the essence of democracy was at first cited as a justification for redistribution of power to the commercial class and only much later as a principle for extending rights and privileges to all citizens. This shift continues today in countries around the world and may not yet have reached its acme in any country.
(http://www.icpd.org/democracy/)
In my personal opinion, democracy does create stability. As is the norm however, there are two sides to this case, and there have been cases in which democracy does not fully create stability, a particular case which has been outlined and generalized by the statement “tyranny of the majority”. Let’s look at how democracy can create stability first.
Looking first at two main forms of stability, social and political stability, it is fairly evident that democracy can result in these two forms of stability. Democracy allows for contrasting viewpoints, dissent and criticism to be openly aired, and creates avenues and platforms on which such statements can be made public. As such opinion is not suppressed, and dissenters are generally allowed and encouraged, to provide checks and counterbalances, there is generally increased political stability, and the power, being vested in the masses, is not wholly tilted to suit a single political party.
Next, representative democracy allows the masses to be vested with the power to choose the person with the vision and ideologies who will best create policies that the masses feel will benefit them. Direct democracy is a, well, more direct way, with the masses actively involved in the policy-making et cetera. Thus, as the people are allowed to have control over the decision-making process, less unrest is likely, and social stability will be created. Further, democracy allows for a cycle of development to be perpetuated, as the people who have such liberties and freedom at their disposal, as a democratic method of governance will afford its citizens, should be able to push for what they feel will benefit them most.
Of course, there will be contrary examples, such as, as aforementioned, the “tyranny of the majority”. This is where the majority uses the power vested in it to overrule or trample down other minority groups present in the country, and to vote for policies which will enhance its position or solely benefit itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)