TOPIC 2 : "Democracy creates stability in a society"

“Democracy creates stability in a society.”

I believe that many peoples’ definition of democracy is homogeneous: a system of government in which the power to decide who to govern over the people lies in the people themselves – a utilitarian approach, where majority wins. Stability in a society can refer to a state in which a society remains unthreatened by social, economic, and political issues which can directly or indirectly negatively impact the people.

Democracy can indeed bring stability to a society. Firstly, the key feature of democracy, being the ability of one to express his or her view in the country’s politics, can satisfy the peoples’ desire to contribute to the society, or more importantly, the country’s well being. The presence of such a desire is a must in order to make each and every citizen feel like part of the country, which enables them to have a greater feel of their “national identity”. In this aspect, democracy manages to increase the national pride of each and every citizen, thus reducing the number of problems caused by the lack of national identity.

Furthermore, it is most likely true that one, without the influence of external factors, would vote for the political party which he feels can make the best decisions on his behalf, thus enabling the society to advance at the greatest speed. By this concept, the best party with the greatest potential to lead the nation has the highest chance of being successfully voted in. In this manner, the concept of “may the best man win” is greatly emphasized. In so doing, the “best” political party, or so as the election results deem, would be able to lead the country to its best potential, thus further stabilizing the country. This system is linked in a “cause and effect” manner, where the system of democracy leads to the best political party being able to bring stability to the country. As such, democracy may indirectly bring stability to the country. Take Singapore for an example. For the past few decades, PAP has managed to capture the majority of the votes from the people. And indeed, it has done well to maintain social, economic, as well as political stability in our homeland to a certain extent.

However, democracy might fail to create stability in a society too. One instance would be the case of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government practices democracy, but why are there so many conflicts which arise within the country’s midst? One explanation for that would be a loophole of democracy: the fact that non-citizens are not allowed to vote. The reason behind this is probably to prevent foreigners from affecting the election results too much. However, some Tamils are not granted citizenship in Sri Lanka, even though Tamils constitute a significant percentage of the country’s population. This has caused the election results to be bent away from the Tamils, which results in the Sinhalese dominating over the Tamils. This has created massive racial conflict in Sri Lanka. As such, democracy might fail to create stability too.

However, I feel that in the long run, democracy will still be able to “stabilize” a society, as it is an effective form of government. Comparing “democratic” Singapore to other countries, take pre-Communist Russia for an example, we can tell that Singapore has a more effective form of government compared to pre-Communist Russia, where the Tsar passed laws without consulting the people, leading people to poverty, and ultimately resulted in the people overthrowing the Tsar, coupled with social unrest.