According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the definition of "democracy" is:
- government by the people; especially a) rule of the majority b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
The merits of democracy have been hotly debated since its inception. Lately, we see citezens of countries like Myanmar suffer during the recent cyclone which ravaged the land. Yet, its government refuses to allow foreign aid to enter the country for fear of losing its sovereignty.
In this backdrop, is there cause for us to reinstate or question the merits of democracy? What are your takes on democracy?
11 comments:
I must say that democracy is thus far the most effective form of governance, creating stability in societies.
We see many first world countries thriving on a democratic government and a capitalist economy.Democracy is the process by which we get ourselves organized to perform capitalism. In short, democracy can be described as the "how" and capitalism the "what".
Weber, a great economist of the last generation, contended that that democracy in its clearest form can occur only under capitalist industrialization, and that it had its greatest opportunity in a society which emphasizes individual responsibility. He stated flatly that history clearly confirms that modern democracy rose along with capitalism and in a casual connection with it.
Thus, we can see that democracy is a prerequisite for capitalism to take place, which no doubt creates stability and prosperity in an economy, thereby ensuring a satisfied population.
This may be met with criticism. Take China, for example. Communism has served well, and China is today considered to be an emerging superpower and one of the wings of Asia.
But I think China could have arrived at its current power and economic strength much earlier had it embraced democracy and with it, capitalism.
Democracy creates stability in society
Firstly, What is democracy? Looking over the dictionary, I found that democracy is a fair and equal treatment of everyone in an organization, etc; and their right to take part in making decisions. Democracy seems to be a quite utopian policy. Actually, it works but no so effectively as we hope.
For the statement of ‘Democracy creates stability in society.’, I personally agree with it.
First of all, what is a stable society like? And how can democracy help to improve it?
In my opinion, a stable society must be able to provide all its citizens with abundant benefit such as food, salaries and so on to live and work for the whole society. If not, however, all members may lose the sense of belonging to the society. Even if they work very hard, they still cannot get enough income from the society to feed their families or even themselves. At that time, they became upset and lost their enthusiasm to work. Moreover, unrest including marching or even conflict may be caused which would damage the stability and peace of the society. For example, one of the reasons why the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrated is because their members didn’t get abundant benefit or income from the society under authoritarian policy. However, democracy argues for equal distribution of resource including income, foods, etc. Under this condition, everyone in the society will get equal takings from the society. As a result, they won’t feel unfair so that they all try their best to work in order to bring glory to the society including every single individuals.
On the other hand, I think once everyone in the society possesses the right and power to choose or even become the leaders or representatives, it will be a stable society then. It’s because every individuals belong to the society so they all have the right to elect their own representatives to represent themselves in order to manage the whole society better. Otherwise, they felt themselves marginalized or even alienated from the society. As a result, all of them work for themselves and ignore the whole group. Gradually, more and more people lost the sense of belonging to the group. Finally, the society collapsed! For instance, in Malaysia, the Umno party used to elect leaders by cronyism instead of democracy which caused that the political power is only held in a small group of people. This would definitely upset the citizens. However, in this case, democratization will loosen the grip of the small group and break the chain of cronyism.
Democracy, a very good way to solve and mitigate a lot of problems and outrage in a society, however, is very difficult to perform. On one hand, it’s because the so-called consensus is very hard to achieve. No matter what the final decision is, there will always be a group of people existing against it. On the other hand, one of the effective ways to accomplish democracy is poverty eradication. Poor countries seem not to be strong enough in economy to support democracy although democracy also works for such societies.
I personally agree with Zihao's comment.
Democracy is a social system that most of the countries today agree with and democracy is the sign of civilization. Only two countries, Myanmar and Saudi Arabia are not in the democracy system.
Democracy is so wide spread. There must be some reasons.
"Democracy creates stability in a society." may be one of the good reasons.
Democracy means it depends on people, government represent people's rights. The harmonious of members of the country decide whether this country is stable.
The opposite of democracy is dictatorship which is most unacceptable. The infamous events of the dictators tell us that democracy creates stability in a society. Maybe the most infamous dictator is Adolf Hitler. In the control of him, Germans fall in a fanatical belief of their race, the abhorrence towards Jews. Such a country seemed to be super stable------Actually most of the countries in a dictatorship are just like Nazi Germany, they all fall into a hero-worship of their leaders and seemed to be unbreakable. However, countries like them are not stable at all. It is because their strength comes from there "hero" leader, without their leader, the only way for them is death. On the other hand, the leaders usually are irresponsible. In this way, we can see that dictatorship, the opposite of democracy, is actually very weak.
Let's move back to democracy. People in countries of democracy can decide their own ways. The advantage of this is, the way decided by a lot of people is more suitable for a country than a way come up with one person. This is obvious, one person only has his own idea. The more people involved in discussion, the more the way match with most members' idea. The stability of a country also comes from the food, salary and safety. Democracy can do these jobs perfectly. In a democracy system, people tend to have equal rights, including salary, food and many other rights. About safety, our host already gives a good example. Because of Myanmar’s political system, victims suffered from cyclone cannot receive helps from other people, many people even paid their lives for it, but in democracy system, when people are in danger, they can receive others help as soon as possible, they can always in a safe position. In this way, we can see that democracy satisfied the most important part of a country, people. With the people’s unity, a country can be very stable.
However, real democracy is difficult to realize. In fact, real democracy is impossible because there should be no things like “country” in a democracy world.
In response to Skywalker,
Firstly, it is true that most democracies we see are capitalists as well. But the link between these two has yet to be established. It would be a fallacy to assume that these two are related just because they exist together.
Next, you have yet to establish why capitalism is so good and how it creates stability in society. Capitalism has its fair share of problems. It leads to exploitation of workers and drastic income gaps. It leaves the poor in a poverty cycle while the rich continuously gets richer. Is this stability?
Also, there are the Marxists who believe that we are in the process of class struggles, where capitalism is at the level before communism, which is the ultimate goal of humanity since to them; it is the epitome of freedom.
Communism is, he explains, "the positive transcendence of private property, or human self-estrangement, and therefore the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man... the complete return of man to himself as a social being..." (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844)
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/marframe.htm
Whereas capitalism results in this:
Exploitation: Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. He sees it as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. The profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labor, in order to enable the capitalist class to turn a profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Main_ideas
The poor proletariats, forming the majority of society, face tyranny and oppression from the rich capitalist class. Thus, the majority of society loses its freedom in this capitalist state. How can such a society ever be stable? The oppressed majority are bound to rebel in time.
Whereas in communism, everyone is regarded as equals so there is no class stratification. This is much more stable and sustainable since everyone progresses at the same pace, instead of huge disparities between classes in capitalism. There is also much more freedom since people are no longer working for other individuals. Instead, they are working for themselves because their quality of life depends on the quality of their community. Thus, everyone will have a vested interest in their own community, doing away with the biggest problem with communism, that of idleness.
Then again, communism is regarded as the last and highest form of ruling for a reason. For people to understand the importance of everyone contributing, a certain level of maturity and selflessness is needed, which may not be present at this stage.
In my next post, I will discuss the problems with democracy.
I venture to say that China’s example of communism under Chairman Mao did not paint such a rosy picture.
Communism encouraged the people to be lazy, only doing the minimum required, since any surplus will go to the government to be redistributed. Families were allotted land and food according to the number of people in their family, not based on merit. Thus, that period saw an economy downturn for China. Eventually, they recognized the flaws of communism and “modified” their policies to a more meritocratic one, where one could sell food surpluses on the market for extra income.
Capitalism is an internally stable economic system, in that it is consistent with human behaviour. People understand that life is not fair - there's no "free lunch". You have to work to survive and only the lucky who manage to thrive within the socio-economic matrix make it to the top. As long as there is a belief/hope that one can advance in the system, there is an incentive to participate.
Capitalism is also externally stable, in that survival in a capitalistic system requires innovation and flexibility to keep up with the changes in supply and demand. Such a system is generally prepared to deal with the influx of competition from external sources.
Undoubtedly this economic stability will be reflected in society too.
http://graphcomp.com/home/bfree/opinions/economy.html
There is little argument today about whether or not there is a relationship between capitalism and democracy. Two great economists of the last generation, Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter, detailed the linkage. Weber contended that democracy in its clearest form can occur only under capitalist industrialization, and that it had its greatest opportunity in a society which emphasizes individual responsibility. He stated flatly that history clearly confirms that modern democracy rose along with capitalism and in a causal connection with it.
Schumpeter was even more emphatic. He stated that modern democracy is a product of the capitalist process, and the two were mutually supportive parts of a rising modern civilization.
Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production. However, the primary premise of capitalism, the one that I consider most important, is that is based on individual rights. It is the only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights.
This means that capitalism recognizes that each person is the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as long as he does not violate the rights of others.
Contrary to widely held beliefs, capitalism is not a system which exploits a large portion of society for the sake of a small minority of wealthy capitalists. Ironically, it is actually socialism that causes the systematic exploitation of labour. Exploitation is inherent to the nature of socialism because individuals cannot live for their own sake; rather they exist merely as means to whatever ends the socialist rulers may have in mind.
http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmc158.php
I noticed we digress a little. Let us move away from capitalism and communism. We should only discuss this if it contributes to our discussion on democracy and whether it creates stability in society.
Approximately 65% of countries in the world are democracies. Democratically speaking, we are a democratic world. Democracies are the most common form of governance in the world today.
But does this necessitate that it creates stability in society? I think not. In the next few posts, I shall discuss some key problems with democracy. Each member is to choose one each and respond to that to further the discussion.
Let us discuss the whole idea of the tyranny of the majority. A democracy is such that the majority gets to call the shots, disregarding the minority’s views. After all, a democracy disregards the idea of a herd mentality, and assumes that the more people agree to something, the better that decision would be. But this is obviously untrue. The majority of the world believed that the US should invade Iraq. Now in hindsight, we know that that decision is not very correct.
In a democracy, the majority dictates over the minority. Now this leads to the majority marginalising the minority, where the minority has to perpetually compromise. This minority would then be highly dissatisfied. It would want change, for more fairness. The plight they are facing is entirely contradictory to a democracy’s fundamental ideals of equality, freedom and fairness. But since they, being the minority, are unable to evoke change politically, they have no choice but to resort to violent physical means. Examining Sri Lanka and their Tamil Tigers’ protests, we know that the result is a highly unstable society.
Next, democracies are based on certain assumptions, that if untrue, tears down the whole system altogether. Democracies are based on decisions. The decisions its people make. However, a democracy also decides to assume that humans are rational beings, capable of making its own decisions. Therefore, it entrusts the common people to make all the decisions in the country. Whether or not these decisions are correct, or really in the best interests of the people, the democracy leaves it up to the people.
But what happens if this fundamental assumption is flawed? Perhaps people are not all that rational as they are assumed to be. This excerpt compares the irrational humans with mere insects, showing just how irrational humans are.
Human beings love honor and hurt each other to get it; other animals don’t know of such irrational things. Ants and bees do not know the difference between their personal well being and social well being. Humans make big distinctions between the two and are willing to sacrifice the common good for their personal advancement. Ants and bees do not get into power struggles or complain about how well the queen bee is doing her job; human beings are always complaining about whoever exercises power over them. Ants and bees do not speak to each other in words and do not use words such as “good,” “evil,” “just,” and “unjust” which supposedly refer to something immaterial. But human beings not only use those words, but use words to distort and control what those words refer to in the physical world. Human beings, then, use language to invent all sorts of distorted interpretations of physical reality. Ants and bees are continually active in ways that are productive; human beings treat each other even worse when they are not simply trying to stay alive.
www.lyon.edu/webdata/users/mbeck/Hobbes,%20Locke.DOC
Then, what kind of decisions can we expect the irrational people to make? What kind of decisions do irrational beings made? Bad ones, I assure you. Drawing an analogy, it is similar to having an irrational dictator lead you. The dictator is chosen because I have already proven how tyrannically similar to dictators the majority can be. Looking back to a sad time in history, irrational dictators like Adolf Hitler, made decisions like Holocausts. That definitely leads to instability in society.
And even if humans are rational, they still need a certain level of education to be able to make the right decisions. Evidence for this is obvious. Just compare any Tom, Dick or Harry on the streets, with an academic. Who is able to make the better decision? Who is better-informed, better equipped to analyse and weigh his options? I think we all know the answer.
Democracy assumes that its people have this education. However, a vast majority of the world together are living under a dollar a day. With barely enough to put food on their tables, and a roof over their heads, are they still capable of receiving an education? And not just any education, but it has to be sufficient education to allow them to take part in policy and law making. This is precisely what a democracy does, equating the common laymen to lawyers and politicians. Thus, wrong national decisions are presumably made, instability is caused.
Responding to leoncjy on the issue of tyranny of the majority, I think it would be appropriate to use this proverb "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
What defines Rome and its culture? The majority, Romans! So if you are a minority, do you expect everyone else to conform to your customs? Sounds unreasonable right?
So what's the alternative solution to raging like a bull in a China shop and forcefully coerce the majority into adopting your views? The simple answer is to migrate.
The minority of different opinions can move to another land and create an independent state, where they will be the majority.
Simple, peaceful and elegant.
So tyranny of the majority isn't really a problem; a stable society can obviously coexist with a democratic state.
I agree with leoncjy.
It is incorrect to make decisions only because most people agree it or support it. This is one of the most controversial problems in democracy. As I have mentioned before, no matter how democracy works, there is always a small group of people standing against the point. Gradually, they may feel themselves marginalised by the community which may not leads to stability but conflict.
On the other hand, I still insist that democracy sometimes may not not be able to motivate all the members to take part in the event. As a result, democracy cannot achieve the final goal which is equality to all members.
Democracy shows the mind of people and the respect of people‘s right. However, we cannot say that democracy is the perfect one. Many people think that democracy is the best way, but this is the problem, so many people believed in one way will cause the lost of improvement, a system without improvement will surely die because of the lack of new energy.
Another problem I realized recently, the dictatorship and democracy may not 100% opposite. A democratic society let all of the people have the right of control the nation, but not all of the people are educated and thus not everyone can use his rights properly. For this reason, people must let some of them use their rights------ In some degree, this is the dictatorship, but this must happen in democratic country! So my opinion is, democracy must be flexible, so that people can have their own true rights. If everyone insists to have all of their rights, they may lose all of their rights.
Post a Comment