To Mrs Seow: My sincere apologies Mrs Seow for the late submission, I had posted the essay on my social studies blog instead of this English Blog, misunderstood the instructions.
Nature advocates that no one person is similar to another. We have different characteristics, different needs and desires, values, aspirations, and ideals. These very individual needs would definitely have the potential to contradict with one another across peoples of a different society. For example, an elder might want a simple environment to live in, while a technically savvy youth would prefer a more gadget-filled and high-tech society. Given this ever-present conflict between individuals, there would always be some need, or the potential for some need, for one party to give in, to relent, surely bringing about some form of discontent, no matter how big or small. These needs can cause conflict, and hence no compromise can truly eliminate discontent within any society.
“Democracy creates stability.”
In considering this statement, it is essential that its terms are defined, so as to ease a closer examination and assessment of the statement at hand. Democracy is a state where absolute power is vested in the hands of the people, and proposes equality of all men. We have to bear in mind though, that how democracy is viewed and has been practised has progressed over the years, and there is no one definition that can encapsulate the entire meaning of it. The term “stability” here is a state a society is in, where there is minimal discontent and unrest, and no presence of potential conflict.
Discontent among people gives rise to conflict. And for a society to be stable, free from any form of potential conflict, there has to be the elimination of as much discontent within the society as possible. Flipping through any historical textbook would show the countless examples of the past, like in Ancient China where emperors were overthrown when the commoners felt that they were unfairly treated by their incompetent government, giving rise to many rebellions. Such is the power of the potential conflict stemming from discontent among the people.
Democracy offers the option of voting, and thrives on active citizen participation. Such participation arises when there is a need for it, be it during an election where representatives of the people are required or more obviously in demonstrations where there is the voicing of concerns. Democracy does propose the equality of all men, but in the case of voting, the needs of the minority will always be compromised, leading to discontent within a section of the society. This discontent, especially so amongst a large number of people, has the potential to bring about large-scale conflicts, and ultimately, instability. I personally feel that this reduced attention paid to the minority is unfair, and can be deemed a form of discrimination. The nature of voting dictates that the majority wins, hence it is important how the society treats minority views in the process. Minority views should be recognized, and accommodated, not dismissed. However in the case of democracy, the views of the minority are rarely considered, and there is a failure to accommodate everyone. This tension between the majority and minority groups is inevitable, even more so in the case of democracy.
Deviating viewpoints and ways of thinking create factions in societies that ultimately go against each other. Democracy does just that. It provides a platform for deviating ways of thinking among people, where you have political parties competing against each other, and when the people of a society are made to vote it is highly unlikely every single individual makes the same decision. This is definitely not stability, but rather a constant struggle for power in the houses of parliament in democracies. The society is divided based on the number of political parties there are, and not only do these parties compete against each other, the people of the society have to make their decisions on the deserving party of their sacred votes. Societies are split up because of this. Take a look at Malaysia where the UMNO is full of internal disagreement, and cracks in the government are beginning to show. If there is conflict within the ruling body, how is it possible for the people to be free of discontent? The country and society can never be stable this way, which is exactly the result of democracy: the catalyst for individual views and expressions.
In today’s world, democracy is practised widely and if we take into consideration the amount of discontent generated from other political systems from the past, democracy can be said to be the most stable amongst the existing systems. However, although democracy may perhaps be the best way to deal with the conflicts and discontent within a society, it certainly does not mean that democracy creates stability, which is the issue at hand. As much as democracy is the optimal way to settle for a compromise and generate the least amount of discontent, stability is not created. In fact, the existence of a flawless system does not exist, and no system can create stability, based on the sole fact that humans are different, and it is almost impossible to derive a method to eliminate discontent. The individuality in a democratic society merely makes it harder for discontent to be minimalised. With the divisions among political parties which are a must for any form of election to go on, democracy in this case just breeds more tension between different sections within the society, be it the majority against minority situation, or the scenario where the society is divided based on the followers of the different political parties.
This presence of such individuality in a society can inevitably create instability, and democracy produces a diversity of individual expression. It does not create stability, but instead offers a compromise. To every compromise, there will still be discontent, and always the presence of potential conflict, from which instability emerges. Democracy is not the sole creator of stability, it hinges on a myriad of other factors as well.
For a country like Singapore that has been stabilized by authoritative figures such as Lee Kuan Yew, stability was not obtained based on democracy alone. It also required the close inspection of the economical and political circumstances, which led to the making of key decisions by the country’s rulers. This demonstrates that stability is not derived from democracy alone, but also a myriad of other factors. Therefore, it would not only be incorrect, but also impossible for democracy to be deemed the creator of social stability.
