Bryan's Argument through analogy seems to work like this,
A chariot like a society needs direction and speed to be competitive.
Which can be only provided when the horses do not fight the charioteer.
This however makes the assumption that society is at its functional best when there is a single leader in power. This however contradicts mainstream historical precedent as it breeds dynastial mindsets and associated problems like nepotism, power grabbing and assassinations. Not to say this is nonexistent in democracies but because incumbents subject themselves to term limits in most cases such power grabbing habits are less likely to occur.
A society that is able to achieve understanding between the people and the governments is the most effective state. As efforts taken during the emergency that Bryan supposes will cripple the government taken without populist consent will only breed resentment which often leads purely to instabillity which they tried to curb.
A people willing to elect a government that has emergency powers will not be able to have any legitimate dissent against actions taken mandated by the people. Therefore a democracy is truly the system better able to deal with crisis.
Nick Quah
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
A Reply
My good friend,
It is an axiom of democracy not to make the people most happy and satisfactory, but the majority of the people. There is the key difference, of in favouring the majority instead of the totality of society, the "optimal" or "maximum" happiness and stability may not be achieved.
Utilitarianism is a matter of the totality of a state, not in statistical majorities.
Will you value the opinion, opinion by the way and not necessity, of the majority over the necessities of the totality? Will you for the sake of the part, however large it may be, neglect the needs of the whole? Democracy is essentially a compromise, a compromise that favours the majority, ironically by claiming to favour and be partial to no one. Whether such a compromise is truly and eternally stable is anybody's guess, but remember that as it is a compromise, democracy is not perfect. If something imperfect persists in a state of by definition temporary stability forever, then I would say that it is not an imperfect thing.
And yet it is.
You give me the example of America, granted then. But it might be a little ad hoc to say that "America is successful because its people voted for their leaders", for there are definitely other, perhaps more important factors.
Will you subscribe to a compromise forever?
~Bryan~
It is an axiom of democracy not to make the people most happy and satisfactory, but the majority of the people. There is the key difference, of in favouring the majority instead of the totality of society, the "optimal" or "maximum" happiness and stability may not be achieved.
Utilitarianism is a matter of the totality of a state, not in statistical majorities.
Will you value the opinion, opinion by the way and not necessity, of the majority over the necessities of the totality? Will you for the sake of the part, however large it may be, neglect the needs of the whole? Democracy is essentially a compromise, a compromise that favours the majority, ironically by claiming to favour and be partial to no one. Whether such a compromise is truly and eternally stable is anybody's guess, but remember that as it is a compromise, democracy is not perfect. If something imperfect persists in a state of by definition temporary stability forever, then I would say that it is not an imperfect thing.
And yet it is.
You give me the example of America, granted then. But it might be a little ad hoc to say that "America is successful because its people voted for their leaders", for there are definitely other, perhaps more important factors.
Will you subscribe to a compromise forever?
~Bryan~
I shall make a bold attempt to defend democracy here.
With democracy being a very people-reliant system of government, the people of a society are the crux in anywhere democracy is being practised. This does not only work for democracy, but for any style of government in fact, the people are an extremely important, if not the most important, factor in any existing society. And in order for systems of government such as democracy to work, the people have to be supportive of their government, and the presence of potential to rebel/go against the rulers has to be eliminated, if not kept minimum.
In democracy we see a system that empowers the people with rights to vote for their government, to voice out their opinions, and that basic choice every human ought to have. We have been going on and on in the past few comments looking at instances in which Democracy has failed but we have not looked at examples of successful democracy. For example,
The United States of America, who have the highest GDP in the world and rank highly on all human devlopment indexes. Its government is acknowledged to be one of the most democratically able and competent. The US has also done well in other facets, such as its militrary development and its economy, both of which are still hugely relavant in this day and age. And the people of USA have definitely had a part to play in this. They have stood supportive of their government, keeping faith in them, and with the country's competent democratic process, there has not been any large scaled reason for rebel or riot in recent history.
And so in this instance, democracy can be deemed the best existing system of governance, due to its active citizen participation. When the people are equipped with the right to vote, it allows them to choose their leaders for themselves, and despite there always being a presence of a minority party whose preferred political parties do not get chosen, it is the one system that guarantees the most amount of support and satisfaction in the people.
With democracy being a very people-reliant system of government, the people of a society are the crux in anywhere democracy is being practised. This does not only work for democracy, but for any style of government in fact, the people are an extremely important, if not the most important, factor in any existing society. And in order for systems of government such as democracy to work, the people have to be supportive of their government, and the presence of potential to rebel/go against the rulers has to be eliminated, if not kept minimum.
In democracy we see a system that empowers the people with rights to vote for their government, to voice out their opinions, and that basic choice every human ought to have. We have been going on and on in the past few comments looking at instances in which Democracy has failed but we have not looked at examples of successful democracy. For example,
The United States of America, who have the highest GDP in the world and rank highly on all human devlopment indexes. Its government is acknowledged to be one of the most democratically able and competent. The US has also done well in other facets, such as its militrary development and its economy, both of which are still hugely relavant in this day and age. And the people of USA have definitely had a part to play in this. They have stood supportive of their government, keeping faith in them, and with the country's competent democratic process, there has not been any large scaled reason for rebel or riot in recent history.
And so in this instance, democracy can be deemed the best existing system of governance, due to its active citizen participation. When the people are equipped with the right to vote, it allows them to choose their leaders for themselves, and despite there always being a presence of a minority party whose preferred political parties do not get chosen, it is the one system that guarantees the most amount of support and satisfaction in the people.
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Reply
A response and extension of Jarret's point on the general populace:
There is too another problem regarding the general populace. How many individuals constitute the populace? A thousand? No, millions. In a democracy, not even in an ideal democracy but just a rudimentary one, these individuals are lent voice. And sure and fine that may be in securing "freedom" and "change", we have essentially millions of individual tugs on the rein of state, and allowing the chariot to steer where most of the tugs pull. What is the significance of this? If the entire populace is in accord, then there would be no problem in this, but that is certainly not the case. We have essentially then, a few factions of people tugging at their own directions, each pulling against the other (such as different political parties are wont to do.) and the whole direction of state is shifted by subtle nuances and small percentage margins. What horror that a margin of 3% or less could completely halt and reverse a state. I personally liken it to the image presented to us by Virgil in the conclusion of his first Georgic:
There is too another problem regarding the general populace. How many individuals constitute the populace? A thousand? No, millions. In a democracy, not even in an ideal democracy but just a rudimentary one, these individuals are lent voice. And sure and fine that may be in securing "freedom" and "change", we have essentially millions of individual tugs on the rein of state, and allowing the chariot to steer where most of the tugs pull. What is the significance of this? If the entire populace is in accord, then there would be no problem in this, but that is certainly not the case. We have essentially then, a few factions of people tugging at their own directions, each pulling against the other (such as different political parties are wont to do.) and the whole direction of state is shifted by subtle nuances and small percentage margins. What horror that a margin of 3% or less could completely halt and reverse a state. I personally liken it to the image presented to us by Virgil in the conclusion of his first Georgic:
" ut cum carceribus sese effudere quadrigae,
addunt in spatia et frustra retinacula tendens
fertur equis auriga neque audit currus habenas."
addunt in spatia et frustra retinacula tendens
fertur equis auriga neque audit currus habenas."
A chariot, the chariot of state, turning out of control on the racetrack as its charioteer tugs hopelessly on its reins in vain. No person can control the state, only "the populace" can. And so the governance is bound to the people, and possibly crippled at critical times, where only "states of emergency" when democracy is arrested can things be better handled, and stability be established.
Will anybody here defend democracy?
~Bryan
Will anybody here defend democracy?
~Bryan
C'est la vie
There are two key terms that require defining in this situation, democracy and stability. Starting with stability, we must first understand that stability is not necessarily always good. Stability is undermined by change, as change seeks to differ from the status quo and enter into possibly unfamiliar territory. Often, change is resisted, causing rifts in society and destabilising it. Society takes time to mature and to accept changes while maintaining the stability and unfettered change does nothing to help maintain this. As has been mentioned before in the ideas of the Social Contract, without this stability we’d be embroiled in a state of Bellum omnium contra omnes, or rather, war of all against all. This is what stability seeks to protect and what is required is to strike a balance between change and stability. An example of a society with near-absolute stability would be Saddam era Iraq or even Zimbabwe under Mugabe ere the elections. These societies had astonishingly low crime rates, but were never able to progress on a societal level.
Moving on to define democracy, we must understand that there are many forms of democracy, ranging from Athenian era-direct democracies to those of the present day. We must understand that democracy, taken in its present context is not solely restricted to the system, but incorporates in ideals and other mechanisms that have been deemed essential for the continuation of a democracy. These mechanisms include things like the Ballot Box system, the independent Judiciary as well as a Free Media. When these conditions are lacking, it is much harder to enforce a democracy that is able to progress in a stable capacity. The fundamental ideas of democracy have been touched upon earlier, but one of the issues I’d like to look at is the idea that democracy represents the people. We must understand that this is not always necessarily the case due to the existence of “Policy Packages”, whereby a candidate’s policies may not entirely be in keeping with the electorate’s ideals, but he is still voted in due to him being the candidate that best complies with the electorates wants. Likewise, party politics also influence the actions of a candidate, where his own personal views may be suppressed by the overarching party stance and he simply becomes a pawn selling policies that have simply been repackaged over and over. While this is merely a possibility, it does have the propensity for taking place, especially in countries with less informed electorates, who may simply be swung on populist policies.
We need to clarify that we are not looking at democracy based on isolated examples, but rather, must point out inherent systemic flaws or boons in democracy itself, brought about by its very operation.
Democracy, first and foremost, is entrusting power to the general populace. There are two obvious areas for potential problems; the first being how power is transferred and the second being the general populace itself. Dealing with the first potential problem, the transfer of power, we must first recognise that this problem may take place in both established and fledgling democracies. In established democracies, this problem is manifest in the form of rigged elections, though not mutually exclusive with fledgling democracies. These challenges to the very mechanisms that democracy functions upon serve to undermine the efficacy of the power wielded by the people and go against the spirit of democracy as a whole. Rigged elections tend to take place when a government in power intends to hold on to its power, bringing about the saying that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This problem is inbuilt in democracies because the incumbents realise that their continued rule is dependent on the electorate and if they cannot change the electorate, the only thing they can change is the manner by which the electorate expresses itself and its will. This creates the atmosphere and motivations for such an act to take place. Fortunately, there are checks and balances to contain this, which I will touch on later.
However, in fledgling democracies, these checks and balances do not exist, cannot be maintained or are simply not enshrined in the constitution. In fledgling democracies used to a strong and decisive leadership, we see how the government’s authority is first and foremost limited and we also see how they are unable to interest the people in politics in the first place. Without civil society and an active citizenry in terms of participation in politics, there is no way for a democracy to go on smoothly, or to claim to have the “mandate of the people”. As such, there needs to be a means by which to kick-start this interest in politics, which is made worse in fledgling third world democracies due to more pressing concerns such as starvation and epidemic. The government needs to first capture the attention of a people who have traditionally existed in a society full of political apathy and needs to change the apathetic nature of these people. Examples of these would be India’s onion politics. As the world’s largest democracy, it is a farce and utter debacle that votes of whole villages are swung on the prices of onions which are promised by candidates. This shows how the power is not actually getting to the people, especially in rural areas, or that the people simply cannot be bothered.
Moving on to the second main issue for today, the general populace. Democracy dictates that the will of the general populace is sovereign. The main problem with this is that it implies the perfect state of the general populace, such that their will is implemented. The first and most glaring problem is that of the tyranny of the majority, which has been touched on by my friends. The second is that of the condition of the populace. Looking at the tyranny of the majority, attempts to solve it have been aimed at balancing majority rule with minority rights. These rights are oft enshrined in the constitution, but the problem with this is that the constitution can easily be amended, all it needs is a 2/3 majority in the house present and voting. An example of this would be Thailand, which has had its constitution amended and even wholly modified countless times in the past hundred years. In addition, the notion of “minority rights” is viewed by some purists as against the ideals of democracy itself. According to them, they claim that minority rights are firstly going against the notion that all men are equal and are elevating some men above others simply because there are less of them. This “reverse-discrimination” has oft been cited, whereby the minority end up marginalising the majority, ironic as it sounds.
The other problem in this issue, being that of the condition of the populace is another pressing one. The success of Western democracies like France on global indicators like GDP seems to vindicate this, but we must note that the journey to democracy was long and arduous. The French revolution against the ancient regime to build democracy came only after decades of public marginalisation by the royalists, and this period saw the gradual maturation of intellectual thought and public awareness through print media, laying the ground for a liberal political culture the French remain staunchly proud of today. The fact that America and Britain went through a similar process clearly demonstrates the need for a pre-existing liberal political culture which a mature and well-informed public had fought for in order for democracy to succeed. Without liberal democracy, governing on a supposedly “democratic" basis will ultimately lead to harm which has been discussed earlier.
At the end of the day, democracy does have its benefits, which are internationally recognised and have been touched upon earlier, but the problems with it seem to be fairly inherent, especially in states with problems with their electorate, lacking accountability and transparency. This occurs particularly glaringly when checks and balances are bypassed, which can easily take place due to the simple need for a majority to enact change.
The question remains, does democracy bring about stability? The very fact that people do respond in elections and messages of hope and change which JFK and Obama seek to propagate do result in certain damages to stability, but it is difficult to simply make a sweeping statement and say that all democracies are dangerously unstable. The fact that democracies fail in their aims may either result in disillusionment with the system or, if the public are apathetic, will simply result in stagnation. While society stagnates, there may be edging or pushing for change, which would destabilises society. If disillusionment sets in, the propensity is much like that of the French revolution, where disillusioned middle classes overthrow the incumbents.
So we question, is stability even possible without stagnation; is it merely a human ideal, construct and dream?
Moving on to define democracy, we must understand that there are many forms of democracy, ranging from Athenian era-direct democracies to those of the present day. We must understand that democracy, taken in its present context is not solely restricted to the system, but incorporates in ideals and other mechanisms that have been deemed essential for the continuation of a democracy. These mechanisms include things like the Ballot Box system, the independent Judiciary as well as a Free Media. When these conditions are lacking, it is much harder to enforce a democracy that is able to progress in a stable capacity. The fundamental ideas of democracy have been touched upon earlier, but one of the issues I’d like to look at is the idea that democracy represents the people. We must understand that this is not always necessarily the case due to the existence of “Policy Packages”, whereby a candidate’s policies may not entirely be in keeping with the electorate’s ideals, but he is still voted in due to him being the candidate that best complies with the electorates wants. Likewise, party politics also influence the actions of a candidate, where his own personal views may be suppressed by the overarching party stance and he simply becomes a pawn selling policies that have simply been repackaged over and over. While this is merely a possibility, it does have the propensity for taking place, especially in countries with less informed electorates, who may simply be swung on populist policies.
We need to clarify that we are not looking at democracy based on isolated examples, but rather, must point out inherent systemic flaws or boons in democracy itself, brought about by its very operation.
Democracy, first and foremost, is entrusting power to the general populace. There are two obvious areas for potential problems; the first being how power is transferred and the second being the general populace itself. Dealing with the first potential problem, the transfer of power, we must first recognise that this problem may take place in both established and fledgling democracies. In established democracies, this problem is manifest in the form of rigged elections, though not mutually exclusive with fledgling democracies. These challenges to the very mechanisms that democracy functions upon serve to undermine the efficacy of the power wielded by the people and go against the spirit of democracy as a whole. Rigged elections tend to take place when a government in power intends to hold on to its power, bringing about the saying that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This problem is inbuilt in democracies because the incumbents realise that their continued rule is dependent on the electorate and if they cannot change the electorate, the only thing they can change is the manner by which the electorate expresses itself and its will. This creates the atmosphere and motivations for such an act to take place. Fortunately, there are checks and balances to contain this, which I will touch on later.
However, in fledgling democracies, these checks and balances do not exist, cannot be maintained or are simply not enshrined in the constitution. In fledgling democracies used to a strong and decisive leadership, we see how the government’s authority is first and foremost limited and we also see how they are unable to interest the people in politics in the first place. Without civil society and an active citizenry in terms of participation in politics, there is no way for a democracy to go on smoothly, or to claim to have the “mandate of the people”. As such, there needs to be a means by which to kick-start this interest in politics, which is made worse in fledgling third world democracies due to more pressing concerns such as starvation and epidemic. The government needs to first capture the attention of a people who have traditionally existed in a society full of political apathy and needs to change the apathetic nature of these people. Examples of these would be India’s onion politics. As the world’s largest democracy, it is a farce and utter debacle that votes of whole villages are swung on the prices of onions which are promised by candidates. This shows how the power is not actually getting to the people, especially in rural areas, or that the people simply cannot be bothered.
Moving on to the second main issue for today, the general populace. Democracy dictates that the will of the general populace is sovereign. The main problem with this is that it implies the perfect state of the general populace, such that their will is implemented. The first and most glaring problem is that of the tyranny of the majority, which has been touched on by my friends. The second is that of the condition of the populace. Looking at the tyranny of the majority, attempts to solve it have been aimed at balancing majority rule with minority rights. These rights are oft enshrined in the constitution, but the problem with this is that the constitution can easily be amended, all it needs is a 2/3 majority in the house present and voting. An example of this would be Thailand, which has had its constitution amended and even wholly modified countless times in the past hundred years. In addition, the notion of “minority rights” is viewed by some purists as against the ideals of democracy itself. According to them, they claim that minority rights are firstly going against the notion that all men are equal and are elevating some men above others simply because there are less of them. This “reverse-discrimination” has oft been cited, whereby the minority end up marginalising the majority, ironic as it sounds.
The other problem in this issue, being that of the condition of the populace is another pressing one. The success of Western democracies like France on global indicators like GDP seems to vindicate this, but we must note that the journey to democracy was long and arduous. The French revolution against the ancient regime to build democracy came only after decades of public marginalisation by the royalists, and this period saw the gradual maturation of intellectual thought and public awareness through print media, laying the ground for a liberal political culture the French remain staunchly proud of today. The fact that America and Britain went through a similar process clearly demonstrates the need for a pre-existing liberal political culture which a mature and well-informed public had fought for in order for democracy to succeed. Without liberal democracy, governing on a supposedly “democratic" basis will ultimately lead to harm which has been discussed earlier.
At the end of the day, democracy does have its benefits, which are internationally recognised and have been touched upon earlier, but the problems with it seem to be fairly inherent, especially in states with problems with their electorate, lacking accountability and transparency. This occurs particularly glaringly when checks and balances are bypassed, which can easily take place due to the simple need for a majority to enact change.
The question remains, does democracy bring about stability? The very fact that people do respond in elections and messages of hope and change which JFK and Obama seek to propagate do result in certain damages to stability, but it is difficult to simply make a sweeping statement and say that all democracies are dangerously unstable. The fact that democracies fail in their aims may either result in disillusionment with the system or, if the public are apathetic, will simply result in stagnation. While society stagnates, there may be edging or pushing for change, which would destabilises society. If disillusionment sets in, the propensity is much like that of the French revolution, where disillusioned middle classes overthrow the incumbents.
So we question, is stability even possible without stagnation; is it merely a human ideal, construct and dream?
Monday, June 9, 2008
To Nicholas
I quote you, Nicholas:
"Therefore Democracy is the most practically relevent and most appealing of systems of governance."
Granted. Now, tell me how that implies that democracy creates stability.
~Bryan
"Therefore Democracy is the most practically relevent and most appealing of systems of governance."
Granted. Now, tell me how that implies that democracy creates stability.
~Bryan
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Defence of Democracy
Here I shall defend democracy,
Democracy has multiple aspect which continue to make it one of the most widely subscribed to methods of governance.
Firstly, it gives the masses the impression of power. This is important as it accords the impression of a mandate from the people, which in contrast to past systems of governance such as "Divine mandate to rule", the people seem to have much more power. This lends the government, especially in direct democracies, a legitimacy of action. That which is sorely lacking in most system of government that we see in contrast to democracies today, causing any action taken by the government to be sorely resented and culled. Examples of such include Myanmar, and the Pol Pot regime.
Secondly, inherent to democracy is concepts of liberty to a certain extent and invested power. Similar to the above, this gives democracy a practical relevance in today's society. Any system of government that wishes to practically exist in today's educated society has to be attractive by comparison. And example of a society overthrown very much by being irrelevant in today's world due to informational transfer and the appeal of ideals would be Russia under the Tsars. where coming back from the war where ideals were compared many soldiers felt shortchanged and dissatisfied in Russia.
Therefore Democracy is the most practically relevent and most appealing of systems of governance.
NICK QUAH
Democracy has multiple aspect which continue to make it one of the most widely subscribed to methods of governance.
Firstly, it gives the masses the impression of power. This is important as it accords the impression of a mandate from the people, which in contrast to past systems of governance such as "Divine mandate to rule", the people seem to have much more power. This lends the government, especially in direct democracies, a legitimacy of action. That which is sorely lacking in most system of government that we see in contrast to democracies today, causing any action taken by the government to be sorely resented and culled. Examples of such include Myanmar, and the Pol Pot regime.
Secondly, inherent to democracy is concepts of liberty to a certain extent and invested power. Similar to the above, this gives democracy a practical relevance in today's society. Any system of government that wishes to practically exist in today's educated society has to be attractive by comparison. And example of a society overthrown very much by being irrelevant in today's world due to informational transfer and the appeal of ideals would be Russia under the Tsars. where coming back from the war where ideals were compared many soldiers felt shortchanged and dissatisfied in Russia.
Therefore Democracy is the most practically relevent and most appealing of systems of governance.
NICK QUAH
Monday, May 26, 2008
A Reply to and Review of the previous Theses addressing the state of Stabilities brought on by Democracy
On Nick Quah's point:
Ah, you have pointed out not the failings of democracy, but rather the failings of failed democracies. This you have stated and used to qualify your statements several times, such as in this instant:
"Therefore democracy in a nation where these civil rights are not respected or where the people are apathetic merely results in a close meshing of powers fundamentally defeating itself."
Exactly, democracy " in a nation where these civil rights are not expected". In a democracy, such rights are (arguably) expected.
It is a given that democracy would entail such civil rights, that such rights are part of the system.
That is, in pointing out the failings of essentially undemocratic system really would not answer the question if democracy fails to create stability.
~~~
On Ryan Tan's point:
I quote you:
"The act of forcing and being forced strips one of his rights, his views and his freedom of choice for that matter."
Are you accusing of democracy doing the above (and below):
1: Stripping of rights
2:Obliterating of views
3:Obliterating of freedom of choice
Democracy, in itself, is the empowerment of the people to allow them their rights, views and freedom of choice. The system you have described, unless I mistake you, describes the exact opposite of a democracy. How does this then, show how democracy is not stable?
Bryan Cheong
Ah, you have pointed out not the failings of democracy, but rather the failings of failed democracies. This you have stated and used to qualify your statements several times, such as in this instant:
"Therefore democracy in a nation where these civil rights are not respected or where the people are apathetic merely results in a close meshing of powers fundamentally defeating itself."
Exactly, democracy " in a nation where these civil rights are not expected". In a democracy, such rights are (arguably) expected.
It is a given that democracy would entail such civil rights, that such rights are part of the system.
That is, in pointing out the failings of essentially undemocratic system really would not answer the question if democracy fails to create stability.
~~~
On Ryan Tan's point:
I quote you:
"The act of forcing and being forced strips one of his rights, his views and his freedom of choice for that matter."
Are you accusing of democracy doing the above (and below):
1: Stripping of rights
2:Obliterating of views
3:Obliterating of freedom of choice
Democracy, in itself, is the empowerment of the people to allow them their rights, views and freedom of choice. The system you have described, unless I mistake you, describes the exact opposite of a democracy. How does this then, show how democracy is not stable?
Bryan Cheong
Monday, May 19, 2008
On the logical and practical possibility of the state that we may call Democratic Stability and the tenets that support such a state
What delightfully interesting points to note. But perhaps we should now consider democracy as a system in itself.
What is "instability"? Stability of a society is a state where there is no potential for conflict, whether through discontent of people or otherwise. Instability, therefore, is the opposite of such, that is a state that has such potential for discontent and conflict.
Democracy, as was expressed, is dependent on active Citizen participation. Such participation arises when there is a need, be it during an election when there is a need for a representative of the people; or more obviously in demonstrations with the voicing out of concerns.
It is an almost given premise that people are different, and thus endowed with their own individual characteristic, needs, requirements and desires. Now, certain such individual needs contradict (To give a simple model as an example, a tall person would want a high doorknob such that he need not stoop, and a short person would want a low doorknob that he need not go on tiptoes.) Given this, there would always be some need, or potential for some need, to be unaddressed, leading to discontent and bringing out of active citizen participation which democracy requires.
Such needs, as above ascribed, can contradict each other, and therefore no compromise can truly take away discontent within the system of society. Now, democracy here offers two options:
The first is voting on the matter, which results in the needs of the minority compromised, leading to discontent within a section of the society and providing the potential for conflict ( and therefore instability).
The second is the bringing forth of such a point in a demonstration, where the needs and wants of the people are forcibly pushed forward, refusal of such (or worse still, the compromising of the needs of the majority) would again lead to discontent and thereby create potential for conflict.
Are there any other points democracy as a system offers? No, for otherwwise it would result in a compromising of "citizen participation" and voice, and there on lead to a compromising of the democratic system.
Then who can say that democracy can create stability, when it in fact creates instability any way about things? Does anybody here disagree, or have an antithesis?
Bryan Cheong
What is "instability"? Stability of a society is a state where there is no potential for conflict, whether through discontent of people or otherwise. Instability, therefore, is the opposite of such, that is a state that has such potential for discontent and conflict.
Democracy, as was expressed, is dependent on active Citizen participation. Such participation arises when there is a need, be it during an election when there is a need for a representative of the people; or more obviously in demonstrations with the voicing out of concerns.
It is an almost given premise that people are different, and thus endowed with their own individual characteristic, needs, requirements and desires. Now, certain such individual needs contradict (To give a simple model as an example, a tall person would want a high doorknob such that he need not stoop, and a short person would want a low doorknob that he need not go on tiptoes.) Given this, there would always be some need, or potential for some need, to be unaddressed, leading to discontent and bringing out of active citizen participation which democracy requires.
Such needs, as above ascribed, can contradict each other, and therefore no compromise can truly take away discontent within the system of society. Now, democracy here offers two options:
The first is voting on the matter, which results in the needs of the minority compromised, leading to discontent within a section of the society and providing the potential for conflict ( and therefore instability).
The second is the bringing forth of such a point in a demonstration, where the needs and wants of the people are forcibly pushed forward, refusal of such (or worse still, the compromising of the needs of the majority) would again lead to discontent and thereby create potential for conflict.
Are there any other points democracy as a system offers? No, for otherwwise it would result in a compromising of "citizen participation" and voice, and there on lead to a compromising of the democratic system.
Then who can say that democracy can create stability, when it in fact creates instability any way about things? Does anybody here disagree, or have an antithesis?
Bryan Cheong
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Nicholas's point about societies having to be already civil for Democracy to effectively be able to bring about stability is valid, and I agree with him.
In any form of government, it is always the people who are most heavily involved. The different systems and ways of government are all but theories that can be put into place, but what cannot be planned for or even predicted, for that matter, is that of the people in a society. The people make up the society, they are essential for society to move onwards, to flourish, but this same group of people are also responsible for any problems or malfunctions in the society. As they say, "Rome was not built in day", and it takes years for a society to modernize, grow economically, territorially, for some areas, the people in it have a huge load on their shoulders. However any society can be destroyed, torn apart, in a matter of days, and more often than not, the crux of the problem lies in the people, be it the leaders of the society or the followers and common people, they all have a part to play.
And that is why it is essential for a society to be already civil, and willing to cooperate with whichever party spearheading the society forwards for the creation of stability to be even possible. As Nick mentioned, with the use of the example of Afghanistan, the reason why democracy there served as merely a platform for strife was because the people were forced to vote, and not given that freedom of choice. To have something imposed on you, to do something (in this case vote) against your own will, are things that no human being will be willing to do with a sincere heart. The act of forcing and being forced strips one of his rights, his views and his freedom of choice for that matter. Likewise, how a society responds towards their government plays an integral part for stability.
In order to bring about stability, a win-win situation has to be in place for both parties (common people and the welfare of society) so that minimal unhappiness or disputes occur. But what i would like to question is the feasibility of this "win-win" situation, is such a condition even possible?
In any form of government, it is always the people who are most heavily involved. The different systems and ways of government are all but theories that can be put into place, but what cannot be planned for or even predicted, for that matter, is that of the people in a society. The people make up the society, they are essential for society to move onwards, to flourish, but this same group of people are also responsible for any problems or malfunctions in the society. As they say, "Rome was not built in day", and it takes years for a society to modernize, grow economically, territorially, for some areas, the people in it have a huge load on their shoulders. However any society can be destroyed, torn apart, in a matter of days, and more often than not, the crux of the problem lies in the people, be it the leaders of the society or the followers and common people, they all have a part to play.
And that is why it is essential for a society to be already civil, and willing to cooperate with whichever party spearheading the society forwards for the creation of stability to be even possible. As Nick mentioned, with the use of the example of Afghanistan, the reason why democracy there served as merely a platform for strife was because the people were forced to vote, and not given that freedom of choice. To have something imposed on you, to do something (in this case vote) against your own will, are things that no human being will be willing to do with a sincere heart. The act of forcing and being forced strips one of his rights, his views and his freedom of choice for that matter. Likewise, how a society responds towards their government plays an integral part for stability.
In order to bring about stability, a win-win situation has to be in place for both parties (common people and the welfare of society) so that minimal unhappiness or disputes occur. But what i would like to question is the feasibility of this "win-win" situation, is such a condition even possible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)