Democracy, commonly understood as the ‘rule of the majority’, is quoted by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address to be the “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, in which all citizens are treated fairly before the law, have their rights respected, and are given freedom of choice and speech, amongst other key conditions.
As to whether democracy is able to create stability in society, it is crucial to examine it from the perspective of two fundamental criteria: Time and Scale & Impact. For the statement to hold true, it must maintain that stability in the long-run and should have significant benefits to a great majority of the people.
In my view, democracy does possess that ability to a large extent, though this is not always the case in reality.
Firstly, democracy grants power over the state away from ruling elites and into the hands of the common-folk, who make up the majority of any nation, giving them freedom in choosing the authority they wish to submit to, and the leaders that will eventually go on to make policies and decisions that affect everyone. The government is effectively decided by a comparatively peaceful process of voting, instead of by violence or through coercion, as seen in the past, whereby the victors formed the next head of state, exempli gratia, the 18th century French Revolution in which the peasants eventually succeeded in removing the unpopular aristocrats after a hostile rebellion. All these contribute to a government placed in power by the majority, working to appease them and meet their needs, hence resulting in a higher chance of stability.
Clean and fair elections in democracies often lead to a transparent government, which is directly answerable to the people, who invested them with authority to make collective decisions. Should the present government neglect its duty or become corrupted, a democracy allows the people to remove them in the next elections and install a new party they believe will work for their interests, thereby keeping those in power always on their toes.
Also, freedom of speech in a democracy promotes the above, allowing various forms of media to openly criticize the government, exposing its faults so that it can continuously improve to cater to the people’s needs, and giving the people the opportunity to make informed decisions and review those they have placed in authority, instead of overly relying on propagandistic government-controlled media that might cloud their judgment. Thus, the element of liberty of expression helps monitor policy-making and keeps the conduct of the government officers in check, therefore ensuring a healthy progressive society.
On the other hand, democracy can, in fact, bring about more chaos than stability. In every democracy, some form of ‘tyranny of the majority’ is bound to happen. In my opinion, democracy unfettered means the minority can actually fall prey to the majority. Democracy is man-made and man, beset with lust, greed and bias, will never be able to be fair, even to himself – thus we cannot assume that the majority will necessarily be obliged to look after the interests of the minority. While in theory, democracy does seek to accomplish that, it is rarely the case in reality, as can be seen from examples dating as far back to the ancient Greeks to the racial conflict in the US during the Jim Crow era, and most notably Nazi-Germany’s attempted annihilation of the Jews. This is because once in control of the state and the majority, the government can deceive the people into believing its ideals and manipulate policies to suit its agendas and prolong its hegemony, all of which were skilfully accomplished by Hitler in his insane scheme to create the Third Reich, after he was voted into power via democratic elections. Such is the power of the majority vote.
However, this is not to say that every democratic nation will result in the majority neglecting the minority group, but rather, in every democratic process, there will be a losing side, and the amount of protection and welfare this minority group is given, if often a key determining factor in the stability of the society – and if violated can lead to dire consequences due to limited ways in reversing the damage done. For instance the African-Americans in the US, the self-proclaimed model of democracy – even after they were allowed to vote, the blacks were still out numbered, and their rights were consequently neglected for many decades. Racism still exists today, it is a fact we cannot escape from – the minority will, to varying extents, always be undermined.
In addition, a democracy assumes the decision by the majority to be right, and should their judgment have been flawed or blinded by false promises, instability may result from their erroneous choices. Looking at the Holocaust, which Hitler instigated and convinced the people to carry out – it was accepted by the majority, but does it mean that it was of benefit to society? Of course not – Nazi-Germany’s attempts to create the superior Aryan race only led to the disastrous World War II, setting Germany further back in recession in the aftemath!
Therefore, in conclusion, I personally believe that democracy does have the ability to bring about stability in a society, by encouraging a fair and peaceful way of placing people into power, resolving differences between conflicting groups through voting, and keeping the government clean and transparent in its dealings to create a stable and progressive society. However, I believe a clear distinction must be drawn between theory and reality, as pure democracy left unfettered in the today’s context will eventually be overcome by dissension with minority groups, thereby limiting the extent to which the statement holds true.
As to whether democracy is able to create stability in society, it is crucial to examine it from the perspective of two fundamental criteria: Time and Scale & Impact. For the statement to hold true, it must maintain that stability in the long-run and should have significant benefits to a great majority of the people.
In my view, democracy does possess that ability to a large extent, though this is not always the case in reality.
Firstly, democracy grants power over the state away from ruling elites and into the hands of the common-folk, who make up the majority of any nation, giving them freedom in choosing the authority they wish to submit to, and the leaders that will eventually go on to make policies and decisions that affect everyone. The government is effectively decided by a comparatively peaceful process of voting, instead of by violence or through coercion, as seen in the past, whereby the victors formed the next head of state, exempli gratia, the 18th century French Revolution in which the peasants eventually succeeded in removing the unpopular aristocrats after a hostile rebellion. All these contribute to a government placed in power by the majority, working to appease them and meet their needs, hence resulting in a higher chance of stability.
Clean and fair elections in democracies often lead to a transparent government, which is directly answerable to the people, who invested them with authority to make collective decisions. Should the present government neglect its duty or become corrupted, a democracy allows the people to remove them in the next elections and install a new party they believe will work for their interests, thereby keeping those in power always on their toes.
Also, freedom of speech in a democracy promotes the above, allowing various forms of media to openly criticize the government, exposing its faults so that it can continuously improve to cater to the people’s needs, and giving the people the opportunity to make informed decisions and review those they have placed in authority, instead of overly relying on propagandistic government-controlled media that might cloud their judgment. Thus, the element of liberty of expression helps monitor policy-making and keeps the conduct of the government officers in check, therefore ensuring a healthy progressive society.
On the other hand, democracy can, in fact, bring about more chaos than stability. In every democracy, some form of ‘tyranny of the majority’ is bound to happen. In my opinion, democracy unfettered means the minority can actually fall prey to the majority. Democracy is man-made and man, beset with lust, greed and bias, will never be able to be fair, even to himself – thus we cannot assume that the majority will necessarily be obliged to look after the interests of the minority. While in theory, democracy does seek to accomplish that, it is rarely the case in reality, as can be seen from examples dating as far back to the ancient Greeks to the racial conflict in the US during the Jim Crow era, and most notably Nazi-Germany’s attempted annihilation of the Jews. This is because once in control of the state and the majority, the government can deceive the people into believing its ideals and manipulate policies to suit its agendas and prolong its hegemony, all of which were skilfully accomplished by Hitler in his insane scheme to create the Third Reich, after he was voted into power via democratic elections. Such is the power of the majority vote.
However, this is not to say that every democratic nation will result in the majority neglecting the minority group, but rather, in every democratic process, there will be a losing side, and the amount of protection and welfare this minority group is given, if often a key determining factor in the stability of the society – and if violated can lead to dire consequences due to limited ways in reversing the damage done. For instance the African-Americans in the US, the self-proclaimed model of democracy – even after they were allowed to vote, the blacks were still out numbered, and their rights were consequently neglected for many decades. Racism still exists today, it is a fact we cannot escape from – the minority will, to varying extents, always be undermined.
In addition, a democracy assumes the decision by the majority to be right, and should their judgment have been flawed or blinded by false promises, instability may result from their erroneous choices. Looking at the Holocaust, which Hitler instigated and convinced the people to carry out – it was accepted by the majority, but does it mean that it was of benefit to society? Of course not – Nazi-Germany’s attempts to create the superior Aryan race only led to the disastrous World War II, setting Germany further back in recession in the aftemath!
Therefore, in conclusion, I personally believe that democracy does have the ability to bring about stability in a society, by encouraging a fair and peaceful way of placing people into power, resolving differences between conflicting groups through voting, and keeping the government clean and transparent in its dealings to create a stable and progressive society. However, I believe a clear distinction must be drawn between theory and reality, as pure democracy left unfettered in the today’s context will eventually be overcome by dissension with minority groups, thereby limiting the extent to which the statement holds true.
