Democracy creates stability in a society

As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”, meaning that democracy is centered around the “people” of a country. Through democracy, the power to make decisions for a country is invested in its people. However, this does not always result in stability. Three arguments are presented in the rest of this post.

In a democratic society, the approach would be to follow the vote of the majority. However, this leaves the minority in the lurch. When people within a country are marginalized, it creates resentment among them. This can result in them organizing protests or even committing hate crimes against the majority in a bid to get their way. This broadens rifts between the majority and minority and results in a divided country. Usually people of similar ethnic or religious groups tend to have similar values and beliefs resulting in them having similar viewpoints. The divide then ends up becoming a racial or religious one. With a lack of racial harmony, a country would no longer be considered peaceful and stable.

It could even result in a situation similar to that in Malaysia today, where the Indians are being marginalized economically while the majority, the Malays, are given numerous monetary benefits because they are indigenous to the land.

The second major problem with democracy is that not everyone is capable of making an altruistic decision for the whole nation. An example of this is in the case of Indonesia which wants to increase its petrol prices by reducing government subsidies. This has been faced with public outcry. Although it is the majority vote to keep the price down, it will certainly affect the nation’s stability if all its money is put into subsidies. Indonesia would be left with less money to spare for development and other essential areas. This would result in further unhappiness among the people, resulting in an unpeaceful, unhappy and unstable environment.

The third problem with democracies is that it is hard for the government to make unpopular policies. The majority and most popular vote is not necessarily the best choice in terms of stability of the whole country. This can be seen in the example of India, the world’s largest democracy in terms of population. The government does not dare to make policies which the majority will not agree with as this will result in them being removed from office earlier. As a result, these policies are not always very effective. As compared to countries like China, in which the government is not as afraid to implement unpopular policies. In more authoritarian states, the peoples’ view does not matter as much and this allows the government to make changes in the country’s best interests.

For instance, both India and China face the problem of overpopulation. In India, the government policies merely encouraged its people on voluntary family planning. This was a policy which obviously failed miserably, because the total population has doubled in the last 40 years. While in China, a different approach was taken. A strict one-child policy was enforced. Despite some of the negative repercussions of this policy, looking at China today, we can conclude that it has worked as the population has definitely decreased. In this sense, India (a democracy) is unstable in terms of population while China (more authoritarian) has their population under control

Democracy thus can bring about marginalization. In such cases resentment builds up with undesirable consequences. For developing nations, this cannot be good in the name of progress. With progress, comes stability.

Democracy makes an assumption that people are able to decide on a policy for the stability of the whole nation, without being influenced by their own selfish desires. This assumption can be proven false through the given example of Indonesia.

The solution to a stable country probably lies somewhere in between democracy and authoritarianism. Once a balance can be struck between these two extremes, a country would be able to prosper. If people were allowed to express their opinions to some extent while the government still held some authority over the nation, intervening where necessary, progress would come easily. Such countries already exist today and a similar political scene can be observed in countries like Singapore. If other nations were to follow this political model, there will be greater peace in the world.



Sources
1) http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue3/0306p29.htm