Name: Chin Ken Min

Class: 3P

Date: 22-5-2008

Does democracy result in more stability in a country?

Democracy was first conceptualised by the ancient Greeks. It was first introduced to society via the outstanding philosophers in this period of history. The concept of the power to rule a state lying with its citizens has been adopted today in all of the world’s developed countries and many other countries as well.

The very concept of democracy seems to suggest stability in a country from initial observation, with the absence of a “bullying” and oppressive single party or dictatorship system, and the presence of rule by the masses. Firstly, and most importantly, people have a choice of the ruling party. This results directly from a lawful and orderly method of changing an ineffective or unsatisfactory ruling party, through an election. This eliminates instability in that coups, rebellions or even revolutions, would no longer be needed to force change.

Next, democracy also creates channels for people to express unhappiness, and provide feedback. The ruling party, through the democratic process, is made accountable to the people, and has to listen to their grievances. They have no choice but to comply to the majority’s wishes as they would be voted out if they misgovern the state. In this way, there is no build-up of unhappiness among the common folk, as would be the case in a dictatorship, where everyone is ruled by fear. This absence of build-up is indeed important in eliminating instability, as many of the coups, rebellions and major protests in history have been as a result of the people not being able to speak up for a long time, and more often than not, is as a result of an accumulation of unhappiness with the rulers.

Finally, the democratic process, including the Opposition in parliament, ensures checks and balances of the ruling party. It ensures a certain level of transparency in the government, and allows people to have the opportunity to assess the laws and policies before they are passed, to ensure that they would not be harmful to the society as a whole. This would deter and prevent excesses, corruption, and abuse of power, as misconduct by the ruling party would eventually cost them their mandate to govern. The few factors just mentioned are the main causes for internal instability between the people and the government in many countries where the ruling party abuses its power because there is no one to keep them in their place. Another measure would be the uncovering of the excesses and abuses of the previous government when there is a change in ruler. This would further deter the ruling party from abusing its power.

However, as fair and beneficial as democracy may seem, it has its cons, which may create instability. Democracy can only be effective when the majority of the citizens are educated and well-informed, only then can they can make the election process meaningful. This responsibility of objective and wise voting usually rests on the shoulders of the middle class of the society. In many young democracies, there is not a sufficient mass of middle class, possibly resulting in an immature political system, or the absence of a clear two-party system. In this case, it would result in the absence of neither strong nor reliable leadership, which in many cases would result in instability and unhappiness.

Secondly, in many democracies in the world, including Italy, a developed nation, the presence of a fragmented political parties system, coupled with the absence of clear dominant parties, resulting in frequent multi-party coalitions, would often result in weak, indecisive leadership, and power struggles, causing instability. If the transfer of leadership, and the change of ruling party, are not handled properly, it would also cause disruption and instability.

Thirdly, since the ruling party is decided on popularity, it would undeniably be slow to make prompt, effective and robust decisions, especially in times of emergencies; for fear that they would anger a segment of voters who may make the difference between their win or loss in the next election. The consultative nature of democracy does not help either in pressing situations, when ruling based on an iron fist is necessary. This lack of toughness in decision-making may often result in protests and even rebellions, when a problem has dragged on for too long.

Fourthly, because in a democracy, the majority’s votes count, it may result in marginalization of minority groups/insignificant states, because they do not carry significant voting power. Also, the ruling party, for fear of losing the majority’s popular vote, would tend to make decisions and policies which would favour the majority, e.g. by race or religion. This, in many cases such as Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka, would be the main cause for rebellions due to the suppression of minority rights over prolonged periods. In addition to this, the popular decisions might not always be beneficial to the society in the long run, and may cause future instability.

Another factor to consider would be that unlike a dictatorship, the pay and incentives of politicians, e.g. Ministers, are subjected to public scrutiny, such that their compensation tends to be less attractive than top-paying jobs in the private sector. There are also other sacrifices such as loss of privacy. This unattractiveness may result in the incompetent taking up politics, resulting in weak leadership, and thus, poor governance. This incompetence could result in the people taking advantage of the government, and instability would ensue.

In federated political systems, the ruling party of the federal government may be of a different party from that of the state government. The federal government may not work well with the state government, e.g. allocating insufficient budget for the state, and neglect the development of national infrastructure. This unfairness may lead to potential instability.

Finally, corruption in a democracy is not entirely impossible. The decentralization of power to the individual states would probably result in a lack of control over excesses, thus resulting in conflicts in the states, possibly building up to the country level. Also, the ruling party, in order to retain their mandate to rule the country, might put in place mechanisms to entrench their power. This will cause frustration among the citizens in that they would not be effective in making a ruling party change, even though democracy is in place.

On the whole, the stability in democracy is achieved through the checks and balance system, the power lying with the voters, and transparency ensures significant problems are surfaced early. However, democracy may also swing the other way, and cause instability in the country when an incompetent government is in place, or when the political system is too immature to handle the problems that arise with the introduction of democracy. The absence of a two-party system, or a well-supported ruling party that is resolute and strong enough to make tough and robust decisions, would probably result in many of the problems listed above.

In conclusion, I feel that democracy is a good system, if it is implemented properly, and supported by the right underlying environment. The main factor deciding the success or failure of democracy would be the middle class of the society. They serve as the balance between the upper and working classes, and hold the balance of power. Thus, democracy relies on the idea that the “people deserve the government they get”, the voters would make the difference between an effective or unsuccessful democracy. Problems within a democratic country can be resolved with a strong and mature ruling party, which comes from wise and informed voting, and the presence of a sizeable middle class. The middle class would provide the objective voting.