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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
prakhar said...
Democracy brings stability in the society
Democracy is seen as a morally right government but the question is that whether it is efficient and also does it brings stability to the society in which it is applied?
We know that humans have some moral values in them that are developed either by the society or by them selves depending on the environment. Humans are very considerate about these values. Hence people would like to live in a government from which they are satisfied not only in terms of its efficiency but also on the values it shows. Democracy is a government, which has a high chance of remaining in the good perspective of people because of its morally right policies and hence it decreases the chance of having riots from people against the working of the government. We have seen in history that the government giving more rights to one group sooner or later ends up getting riots and protests from another group for example the case of British rule in India. Because people were not satisfied with the government’s policy that is why they stood against it and the result was the eradication of the British government from India. Hence the government, which keeps people satisfied, would be able to stay in a position to rule in this modern world or else sooner or later it would go. Democracy has the ability of satisfying its people and bringing stability in the society for long term especially when there is a case of multiculturalism because of its nature of equality.
Democracy has many disadvantages like normal people may not know that which party is beneficial for them and may choose a wrong one. Democracy takes a lot of time in passing bills because of its nature of having intense scrutiny by different people and hence may delay many processes. Democracy leads to corruption because it is based on electoral competitions. But then also democracy is seen as the most efficient government. In dictatorship the power is only in one man’s hand and unlike democracy no one can fight against its policies and hence it may lead to direful consequences if the dictator starts abusing his power. Government with military rule follows the same problem and creates unsatisfaction among people. Other governments, which do not follow equal rights, cannot maintain a peaceful society. Democracy may bring a disadvantage in countries having majority as illiterate because they would not be able to understand the right person beneficial for the society. But there is always a way of correcting this mistake by not voting the part. Providing them education can solve this problem. Democracy by so far has been able to bring peace to such a level which other government would not be able to in large multicultural countries such as India. Corruption exists because majority of people in India are illiterate but so far there have not been any major ethnic war after the British rule. Pure democracy may not be beneficial in all the cases. Democracy demands freedom. But giving a lot of freedom may corrupt the society and hence it may not always work.
India also after having a democratic constitution has not faced any devastating economic crisis because there is an intense scrutiny done by a lot of authorities when a bill is passed. The main authority cannot execute it unless the other authorities agree to it and hence there is a less possibility of making mistakes.
In conclusion democracy brings stability in terms of peace in the society but its pure form may or may not be the best possible government.
May 29, 2008 9:29 AM
Firstly, I would like to say that this is but one point of view that I am considering and not my final conclusion. Feel free to improve upon my views in a form of Socratic inquiry.
If democracy requires these prerequisites: an educated population, not a very wide rich-poor divide, well-written constitutions, then is stability not a by-product democracy, but rather a condition in order to create a good democracy? Thus, a stable country is a good platform for democracy but democracy does not necessarily bring forth stability.
I agree with Shaun on the part about a homogeneous society. Although it is not true that countries with an ethnic mix cannot achieve a stable democracy, I feel that it would be significantly harder. The United States is an exception because the country does not have a significant native race, as in most of the people are immigrants. Even so, it took nearly a century for America to achieve a stable democracy because of racism and even today they still dace such problems.
Another example depicting democracy at its worst would be the Kenyan elections a few months ago. The two candidates were from different tribes and thus the entire election stirred up much friction between the 2 big tribes. Instead of voting for the better leader, people were aligning themselves with those of their own ethnic group. In a country where there is much tension over racial or religious fault lines, democracy can only help to create more instability. Thus, I strongly feel that we must first achieve voter maturity through education and the breaking down of barriers between different groups.
I would like to just slightly contradict Prakhar’s point on this count. Firstly, I do not quite agree that democracy is a government with morally right policies et cetera, which is the main reason for its ability to remain in power, and its ability to maintain stability as you seem to imply.
To me, I feel that the moral values a particular government holds and that the moral code that governs the government will not particularly make it a democracy. The requirements for democracy to function, and to create stability, are four main ones: they are a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free elections, active participation of citizens, protection of human rights for citizens, and a law which applies to all citizens, as well as a constitution.
This ensures that the people are the highest form of political power, and have the ability to choose for themselves what they want best, so as to ensure that they have what they want and what they consider to be the most efficient and best government possible for their country, which will in turn, benefit them. The people are vested with this power for choice and are thus less likely to be dissatisfied with outcomes or with the policies of the government in power.
I think, the main draw in this case is the impartiality of democracy, and the fact that the people are sovereign, and are vested with freedom, and the power and ability to choose whomever they feel will best govern their country and bring them to greater heights. Furthermore, I also think that it is this consensus among the people, or at least the majority of the people, that helps to quell dissatisfaction and reduces the chance of instability in the country.
Otherwise, I do agree with you that some key conditions for a government to ensure stability, is that there do have to be checks and balances in place for the government to ensure that no one person is wielding absolute power, or that the government does not have ties to the military and the power to use it against the people, or for its own benefits.
I disagree with Shaun on his point that democracies would at some point evolve to non-democratic societies. Perhaps we should refer to philosopher and political economist Francis Fukuyama's book, "The Eend of History and the Last Man". In the book, Fukuyama argues that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the final form of human government. He points out that since the beginning of the 19th Century, democracy, which started off as being merely one of the many systems of government, has grown until nowadays the majority of governments in the world are termed "democratic". He also points out that democracy's main alternatives (which are essentially various forms of dictatorship) have become discredited. Freedom House has also shown in their survey of Freedom in the World that democratic or mostly democratic countries are increasing while their opposites are decreasing. I believe that for the time being at least, human society have come to accept democracy as the most practical governance system, and in turn, relatively most stable
In this post, I shall attempt to summarise the points that have been brought up. Generally, we do feel that democracy can both engender stability, or not at all.
The prerequisites for democracy include an educated and mature society capable of making good choices during elections, constitutions, small income gap, a fair and impartial law, protection of human rights and a political system in which the people are vested with the power to choose their own government.
These are extremely important requirements, and without these, the country may also collapse into instability. This can be further evidenced by the case studies of Thailand and Malaysia that Shaun has mentioned. However, with these requirements in place, democracy may also bring about stability in some ways, because of the less dissatisfaction engendered, as there is a consensus among the people.
However, democracy may even create instability. This can be done through “tyranny of the majority”, where the key feature of democracy, the ability vested in the people to vote and choose, and to select based on majority votes, is used to sideline minority groups. This can thus create dissatisfaction and unhappiness, resulting in instability as well. This can happen as Shaun mentioned, when the societies are not homogeneous. Thus, homogeneity of the society can also be a plausible requirement for democracy to create stability, as tyranny of majority might result.
Lastly, I would like to quote a recent example of democracy gone wrong. In Zimbabwe’s recent elections, the previous president Robert Mugabe, who was fairly elected in a 1980s general election, and led the country into hyperinflation and put in place controversial policies, participated in a run off election widely denounced by the international community. His party engaged in mass killings of opposition party Morgan Tsvangirai’s activists, after Tsvangirai won in the first election, forcing Tsvangirai to withdraw from the second sham election that took place later, and which Mugabe “won”. This highlights the importance of a good political process free of corruption and with power fully vested in the people in a stable democracy, and further, also shows that even with such a process (Mugabe was fairly elected), a country may still spiral down into instability.
Post a Comment