Hi all,
this particular post will be dedicated to my school assignment on Social Studies-a discussion on democracy. In this particular post, I'll be be placing part of the discussion our Chinese scholars in class had earlier this morning. For anonymity purposes, I'll be calling them HJ and YJ.
Our statement of discussion: 'Democracy creates stability in a society'
HJ: I think that first of all, we need to specify what kind of democracy we should be discussing about. What is democracy, and what is stability? In my opinion, our main focus should be about representative democracy, which is most widely used all around the world.
YJ: All right. Since we know that U.S.A. is most renowned for its democracy, let's begin from there first.
HJ: I don't like to talk about specific countries, but I agree with the point that democracy creates stability. Democracy is always associated with elections and so it provides people with chioices to choose their leaders or policies. This gives people more freedom and thus the leaders elected would satisfy more people. Since most people are consented, conflicts will less likely occur.
To my classmates of 3J, please do add on by commenting on this post.
To Mrs. Ong, here's the discussion. Do follow up here when you need to (oh, and you're most certainly welcome to join in the discussion too=D)
Signing off,
xXdaSimXx
Tuesday, May 20 2008
2058 hrs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
It's me back again, to post my own points instead. HJ, in my opinion, we should be discussing more on how the different democracies affect stability in a society. First, let me term 'stability'. I feel stability is when all aspects of a society is prosperous and no one in it should likely be hit badly by any impact on the country's well-being. From here, we now come to discuss the three main democracies-representative democracy, limited democracy and consensual democracy. Consensual democracy is unlikely to create stability, since a consensus has to be met by everyone in the society. Considering human nature, it is highly unlikely everyone can agree on the same thing. Representative democracy is where everyone gets a say, but the decision remains with the government. In this case,it is possible to create stability, but it remains whether the government is corrupt. Limited democracy, is where the people only choose on some decisions and the government makes the others. In this case, both parties will monitor each other and would be more likely to create stability.
Personally, I think democracy, as in pure democracy, would be quite chaotic. With no control on the flow of information, and people who can express their own views freely, you are bound to get some trouble. Riots, demostration, stuff like that. You know...
Yes, I agree, but I feel pure democracy is only possible in utopia, where everyone can and will think for the benefit of all. This is the obvious reason pure democracy is not practiced anywhere, since it'll probably last only a few days before the entire nation blows up in riots.
well, personally, i think that whether or not a certain type of ruling system works mainly depends on the country's history.
like for singapore, the main reason democracy works is because the people mostly vote for the same party, the PAP because all their policies have worked out well for Singapore so far. thus, most of them do not want to change.
the best democracy would be when everyone in the country agree on a particular thing. Justin said, it is difficult to have a general consensus, that is true, however, a general consensus can also be reached if the people do not want to change from the previous party because they led their lives well under that government.
technically speaking, its is not an accurate democracy because democracy because there is practically no democracy. before any elections, enyone can predict the out come because no one really wants to change from the lifestyle they are having now.
lol...i don't know if im making sense, but the general idea im trying to put across is that singapore is not using pure democracy, it has other elements of other types of systems added into it.
ya, but i think there's a problem in ur argument. democracy is following the majority's stand on who should lead the people. therefore, i think that in an utopian society, we will not be practicing democracy, whether pure or not, because there will be no need for a government at all.
A summary of the video displayed in class today-democracy can be very limited in some cases, like in the video, students in a primary school in China are introduced to democracy and are to vote for their own monitor. However, it ends up in a situation where bribery is all over, so this is one scenario in where democracy totally fails.
Hi, I am wei kang. I would like to comment on democracy. What do you define democracy and can democracy be warped in the sense like today's video.
Yes, I agree that true democracy can bring stability. However, can it be acheived in the current world of ours? As far as the current situation is in concern, democracy in the current sense would inadvertably cause more instability.
regarding to the video that we saw that day ,democracy might cause instability ,i think.as it is shown ,the three candidates attacked each other and bribed their classmates. the classmates ,who supported different candidates,formed groups that became antagonistic towards other groups.thus election would contribute to conflicts and chaos.
well,i think we should make it clear that what creates stability and what maintain it .only from there can we proceed discussing our problem.
YJ:I think that compare to direct democracy,representative democracy has its defects.The representatives cannot totally show the mind of the whole population.It is because the representatives tend to be more well-educated,richer,and usually come from the majority race,ethnic group,and also their job usually be lawyers.To compare with the direct democracy which everyone has his rights to vote,the sample of popular decision will be more particular in some aspects in representative democracy due to the job of the representatives-lawyer.But in direct democracy,all people have his rights to vote,then the results of voting will be more random,and more specific to show people's wishes.
Also,the corruption in representative democracy seems to be occured more often,it is because the representatives may be easily bribed when in direct democracy,it is impossible to bribe all the population.So,campare to de direct democracy,representative democracy will be easier to have corruption.
firstly , i believe that different groups with different value and goals in a society will definitely violate the stability of a society.
secondly,felony like murder ,drug-trafficking,or terrorism would also brew instability as they threaten the lives of the people.next,unfair treatment by the government towards certain groups of people, especially the minority,could contribute to conflicks as well.
so i think for a society ,in order to maintain stability,the government of which must be able to ensure equilibrium ,foster a common value among the society ,make sure that the economic environment is stable so that everyone could have a decent living standard,and also it must prevent crimes happening .
then how can democracy create stability? i think that it is because democracy provide people with choices to make descision on the policies,in this way ,everyone could have a chance to change their situation when they feel they are treated unfairly.therefore equilibrium is maintained and thus stability could be created.moreover, democracy make sure that the government is always representing the majority and so most of he population is happy with the government and will not go against it .this also ensure stability.
YJ:In addition to my last comment,I think that however,representative democracy has its advantages in creating a stable society which are the disadvantages of a direct democracy.The first one is about voter apathy.Although in direct democracy,all people have his right to vote,but it doesn't mean that they will use their rights all the time.In a direct democracy,usually people need to vote for many issues for many times,it will lead to the lack of interest of the voters who don't see the issue concerned about them.They may ignore the issue while the issue is deeply concerned about the minority.Such as "increasing agricultural subsidies" which is connected with farmers but the majority may ignore this issue.So it will cause the resentment of the minority which the issue is not connected so much with the majority but deeply concerned with themselves- minority.Even "compulsory vote" policy is conducted,random voting may occured,also the costs of enforcement and the restriction of freedom should be concerned.This problem can be solved in representative democracy.The representatives are in charge of diciding,so they will weigh every issue carefully because if the people don't satisfy about their working attitude,they will no more be elected again.So,even the issue is only concerned about the minority,the representatives will surely work it out well.
Someone will argue that democracy does not equal to good development. That is true. India, one of the most stable democracies in Asia, in the 2005 Human Development Index, ranked 127, behind China, an authoritarian country which ranked 85, and to compare with Singapore and South Korea which considered to be among the richest countries in the world, the huge gap between them is obvious. It is valid to say that democracy is not a good system for some of the countries to develop, instead to conclude that democracy makes nothing. Democracy promotes peace, communication, which is evidently shown in the processes of election. And a peaceful, stable society which violent means are vanished is the most suitable place for develop. But why democracy cannot make its use in some countries? I looked through some articles, and I find that all the countries which are democratic but still cannot develop rapidly have a specific commonplace, that is they are all poor countries. As you can see, a country which is poor, the representatives appealed for people’s supports by promising them to fight for their rights and lead them from poverty to richness. However, after the election, the representatives who succeeded betray his former promise, instead of doing good for people, they corrupted, which would undermine the authority of the government, and this would usually cause the rebellion and riots, therefore, society become instable and the development is affected.
In another word, democracy can only make itself useful in a well-founded society, which means that not only peace is required in that society but also the development of the society has reached a certain level so to provide a fitting environment for democracy.
Um. But regarding the fact about stability, what defines stability in a country? If the majority get what they want, and the minority dont, the minority will not create any fuss because they know they will lose. but is that stability? or is that just a bomb waiting to explode?
YJ, so I can conclude from your point that it is not democracy that fails the country, but corruption. Oh and gummy, complete stability in a country should be defined as a situation where everyone, majority or minority, will not be impacted heavily under any circumstances. It is more of where everyone meets a consensus such that internal strife will not break out. That is true stability. What we see now in most countries, as you describe, would probably a bomb waiting to explode, except that their governments are most likely trying to keep the situation under control.
Post a Comment