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
Monday, May 26, 2008
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?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Scouting Skirmish
Hey all,
Just to kick start the discussion here goes :)
Democracy fails to bring about stability in most societies,
and only works in an already civil society.
This occurs for two reasons,
firstly only a civil society has the perspective to divide between personal
and national interests. An example would be the democracy in afghanistan where
the populace is forced to vote for their own tribal leaders and parties are delineated
clearly by tribe. This is where personal interests and national interests fail to be seperated
and democracy merely serves as an officialised platform for strife. This is especially true in
countries like Iraq where democracy is a farce cracking down the middle along ethnic
and religious lines. Both groups have their own parties which each continuously have
what is according to themselves too little power. Strife is forced to occur for them to gain power
and therefore democracy breeds strife in non-civil societies.
Secondly, Democracy relies very much on a seperation of powers model already being put in place or it would be no different for a dictatorship. Seperation of powers can only occur when the people are informed enough or politically interested enough to serve as a check and balance as well as when the government is open enough to recognise the people's right to protest. 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. This is seen in Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe is unabashedly abusing voters who have not voted for him. Where protests on the streets results in open firing of live rounds into the innocent people. Democracy in a non-civil society merely builds a facadal stability with turmoil eventually surfacing as the people grow increasing restless as is happening in Tibet.
Just to kick start the discussion here goes :)
Democracy fails to bring about stability in most societies,
and only works in an already civil society.
This occurs for two reasons,
firstly only a civil society has the perspective to divide between personal
and national interests. An example would be the democracy in afghanistan where
the populace is forced to vote for their own tribal leaders and parties are delineated
clearly by tribe. This is where personal interests and national interests fail to be seperated
and democracy merely serves as an officialised platform for strife. This is especially true in
countries like Iraq where democracy is a farce cracking down the middle along ethnic
and religious lines. Both groups have their own parties which each continuously have
what is according to themselves too little power. Strife is forced to occur for them to gain power
and therefore democracy breeds strife in non-civil societies.
Secondly, Democracy relies very much on a seperation of powers model already being put in place or it would be no different for a dictatorship. Seperation of powers can only occur when the people are informed enough or politically interested enough to serve as a check and balance as well as when the government is open enough to recognise the people's right to protest. 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. This is seen in Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe is unabashedly abusing voters who have not voted for him. Where protests on the streets results in open firing of live rounds into the innocent people. Democracy in a non-civil society merely builds a facadal stability with turmoil eventually surfacing as the people grow increasing restless as is happening in Tibet.
First Post
Today, many nation-states institutionalize democracy as their political system. Democracy has
its fair share of ups and downs. Your assignment is to address the following motion given below:
“Democracy creates stability in a society.”
Your task is twofold:
1. You must engage your peers in a blog discussion of the aforementioned motion. You will
need to submit a hard copy of your blog.
2. You must submit an argumentative essay on the above motion. The word limit is 500.
The blog commentary carries 5 marks and the argumentative essay, 15 marks. The blog
commentary is a group assessment. The argumentative essay on other hand is an individual
assessment.
its fair share of ups and downs. Your assignment is to address the following motion given below:
“Democracy creates stability in a society.”
Your task is twofold:
1. You must engage your peers in a blog discussion of the aforementioned motion. You will
need to submit a hard copy of your blog.
2. You must submit an argumentative essay on the above motion. The word limit is 500.
The blog commentary carries 5 marks and the argumentative essay, 15 marks. The blog
commentary is a group assessment. The argumentative essay on other hand is an individual
assessment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)