Democracy was defined by Abraham Lincoln as the government, of the people, for the people and by the people. We see democracies frequently today in developed countries, but does this really mean that what is generally accepted as the most common form of government is the best?
For the purposes of this essay, we assess the advantages and disadvantages only in terms of stability of the society.
Democracy works on the assumption that the population as a whole is mature, thus the transfer of power to the people is workable. Yet, for many, self-interest remains the guiding force of our decisions. If we were to be able to vote on every policy including tax collections, as in Switzerland, undoubtedly the majority would vote in favour of lower taxes. Insufficient tax revenues lead to bad maintenance of public facilities, possibly bringing about resentment towards the government and therefore social instability.
In a general election, the most popular and charismatic leader may win, but this does not necessarily mean he is the most capable. Thus the country as a whole will suffer from a lack of effective leadership. Policies on all aspects eventually affect social stability. For example, bad economic policies lead to a stagnant economy. When unemployment rises, the people cannot afford basic necessities. The obvious result is either increase in thef cases or riots, both threatening social stability.
Another problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have rational ignorance regarding certain political issues. This may allow special interest groups, who supply funds to campaigning parties, to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society, eventually leading to social instability.
Tyranny of the majority presents yet another flaw of democracy. This implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. It might decide that a certain minority should be criminalised. For example, several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols, aimed at those considered symbolic of Islamism - the hijab or 'Islamic headscarf', in France, under the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols. Left unchecked, this would result in violent protestations which undermine social stability.
Nonetheless we cannot ignore the glaring fact that democracy provides a check and balance for rulers. Since support of the majority is required, no ruler can ever hope to introduce laws which oppress the people and benefit themselves. With the old monarchy done away with, the poor now have their rights and stand equal before the law.
At the same time, even though voters may sway in favour of an undesirable law, for example legalising vandalism, people can vote against it in time to come once they witness the problems society face when people are free to vandalize. Thus public opinion is generally self-correcting, that is, the population will change their opinion to maintain social stability.
Considering all the above, I think that democracy is still the best form of government for stability in society, albeit one with the minority having grievances, as the benefits far outweigh its harms and when compared to a monarchy where the minority can rule. I think a good solution, which is already in place in some parts of the world, is a higher set of rules, like the constitution, to protect the rights of the minority. As of today, the great majority of countries are democratic, and this allows capitalism to flourish, bringing economic and social development. Many countries including Singapore, Japan, Australia, and America prove this point beyond doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment