Before we begin our discussion, it is important for us to define what it means by"democracy" and "stablility".
"Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives."
Quoted from Wikipedia
Bascially, in our own words. democracy is a political institution whereby people elects their own leaders thus in a way, they have the freedom to choose their government.
Next, the term"stability". What does it mean? Stability refers to thrree leage areas- economic stability, social stability and political stability. All factors converge, a country can be considered domestically peaceful.
Democracy, as it is the voting of political leaders by the people themselves, hence there is more freedom for the people as they get to choose who to leawd them. This resolves racial and religious conflicts as they get to voice their opinions. For example, in singapore, a multiracianal country, each race gets a few seats in the parliament as they can get the support from their own race. This guarantees that the needs of the race is not neglected.
In my opinion, democracy would definitely bring about stability, but if we look it from another point of view, it can also bring harm.
Firstly, democracy would bring about democracy simply because it grants citizens freedom in making their choices. They choose who they want to represent them, and they gain power and authority in deciding the nation's affairs. An example would be that of Switzerland, where every week, citizens can vote to decide the new policies that the government is going to implement. People make their choices, making their voices heard. They are more influential, and they would not be manipulated by the government and have a right to their own life. Therefore democracy can bring about stability, since citizens would be satisfied as they are allowed to make choices, and that they are allowed to shape their lives themselves for their benefit.
However, there are limitations in implementing democracy too. Firstly, even though everyone is given a choice, eventually the majority's decision still overrules the minority's. The latter has no choice but to follow, and they might be prejudiced against since they are the minority and have differing views from the majority. Secondly, in accordance to what zhou minjian mentioned, each race gets a few seats in the parliament as they can get the support from their own race. This guarantees that the needs of the race is not neglected. I feel that this point could be rendered invalid, since if the race is a minority, then even if many of them vote for one person, their decision would still be overruled as stated above. Thirdly, chances of corruption increases. For example, one member of parliament could bribe another to vote for him/her in parliament when proposing a bill, or he/she could bribe others to vote for him/her during general elections. Because there are different choices, chances of corruption would increase. Lastly, if one party is overly-dominant, meaning it has representatives in almost every constituency, then it does not really matter what other parties have to offer, since they will eventually get more seats during the general elections. The outcome would be expected, since one party is dominating most of the seats, and the ruling party would likely be the one with the most representatives, and one that has support of the people. Therefore, democracy would not bring about stability.
In conclusion, I feel that democracy can bring about stability, but in some cases it cannot, as stated above.
Democracy is often seen as an ideal in society. It is believed to be able to bring about stability in a society as people have the freedom of choice to select their leaders. Basically, this ensures that there is no conflict when it comes to the election of the government.
There are two types of democracy- Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy.
Firstly, when I talk about Direct Democarcy, I refer to the situation whereby people can have a say to the issues of the country. Although it may seem that the government is running the job, it is actually the people who are controlling their decisions. To put it metaphorically, the people are just like the steering wheel of the government. This type of democracy can be seen in the western part of the world such as Switzerland and the USA.
How does this type of democracy lead to stability in a society?
It brings out issues which the elite surpress. This allows the people to voice out their concerns and not resort to violence to solve them. Indeed, this can bring about social stability in the country. For example, in Northern Ireland, political injustice is very evident. There is no such thing called democracy. The disadvantaged Catholics had no right to voice out their worries since the elite group of Northern Ireland, the Protestants, were controlling the issues of the country. This made them resort to violence to make their voice heard.
However, one concern over this type of democracy is that there might be too many occasions whereby people have to make their votes and choices on certain policies and events. In such a case,won't the government be considered void? Then, what is the point of having a government is the first place? Yes, people should have freedom over state affairs, but there is definitely a limit to it. Should the government has totally no control whatsoever on the state's policies, confusion and conflict among people will ensue as there is no fized authority to handle the issue.
Secondly, representative democracy. Bascially, it refers to voters choosing their representatives to act in their interests but not with enough authority to exercise new initiatives in circumstances.
It can stabilize our society in a way that should voters become unsatisfied with the elected representatives, representative democracy allows the recall of thse representatives. This is usedul to create stability in the government as corrupted leaders can be eradicated once exposed, to provide more chance for more capable leaders to prove their worth. In such a case, corruption would not be much of a problem for this type of democracy.
But then again, for this democracy to work, the most important variable would have to be the people's mindset. What if the people were influenced by the media or the corrupted leaders to vote for them? After all, democracy requires the people to make the right choice of who their leader should be. They are provided with the freedom, as long as they do not abuse it by influencing others to vote for a corrupted leader, democracy is an ideal. People's mindset is crucial in determining whether democracy can create stability or vice versa. Should their votes are for a capable leader, the country will blossom. Otherwise, the country will topple.
I agree that democracy can bring about stability due to the following reason:
As stated earlier, democracy helps prevent racial prejudices and conflicts to a certain extent. Racial conflicts occur usually when a race is neglected or discriminated against by the government. This is mainly because of the presence of a dominating race in the country. However, if democracy is implemented, the minority or discriminated groups, if united, can win a few seats for political candidates that would voice out their grievances for them. with the presence of these people in the parliament, the minority or discriminated racial groups would be able to gain more respect and would not be discriminated against so much. According to Kia Wei, "since if the race is a minority, then even if many of them vote for one person, their decision would still be overruled as stated above." I agree with you Kia wei, but if the racial group is feeling discriminated, they must be of considerable size as they would not be able to voice out their grievances if they are that small. As these groups are not that small, they can make a difference when they are united, in worse cases, they would sill at least win one seat in the parliament, which still helps to mediate conflicts within a nation, bringing about stability.
From what I see, most of us have not shown why democracy does not work. If we look at it from its disadvantages, there are many points that could harm a country, and potentially "destroy" it.
As mentioned in my previous comment, I mentioned a few points regarding disadvanteages of democracy. There are many disadvantages, some even outweigh the advantages that democracy gives. Quoting Shaun choo, "Should their votes are for a capable leader, the country will blossom. Otherwise, the country will topple." Also, from a video I watched about democracy in class, "Do you want to give equal voting rights to a beggar and a scholar? The difference between them is too huge." A very important factor in determining whether democracy works out or not is the people. I agree with Shaun Choo on this point as he mentioned that a country would topple if a wrong leader is voted. This further enhances my point on why democracy is does not bring about stability. Although there are many other points stated that democracy can bring about stability, there are limitations and I have stated one of them above.
The question we should be asking is "Does democracy bring more benefits than harm?" My answer to that question would be that it depends. There are many dependent factors like mindsets of people, type of democracy in place, etc. If people vote for the right person, then obviously the state would blossom. Otherwise it would not.
Also, looking at Minjian's point, I see that it can bring about stability in some ways. Racial issues are of high importance, and after reading everyone's comments, I have slightly changed my viewpoint. I feel that democracy can stabilise a country, but only in certain cases. For me, it all boils down to the many dependent factors that affect people's decisions, and my stand is that "IT DEPENDS".
I agree that democracy can bring about stability due to the following reason:
democracy also can bring about stability as it can help to eractdicate corruption. when many people vote, there is a very low chance that the results all biasly twisted or corrupted. In the past, many nations adopt an monarchist political system, which involves corruption. In democracy, you can only stand a chance to lead if people vote for you, but if you want people to vote for you, you must show that you are outstanding through the various campaigns and speeches. If you are outstanding in your speeches, you would be able to get enough supporters and bribes would not be nessassary. Hence corruption is not easy to get involved here.
Kia wei said that "chances of corruption increases" It is true that candidates might resort to bribing for votes, but this is not very realistic. Think about it, will you vote for someone that has no ability to gain support through speeches and campaigns but need to resort to bribing? If your answer is yes, how many people do you think will think the same way as you? Will you risk destroying the nation for money?
with those questions in mind, i think not many people would vote for these kind of candidates because they are simply useless, so corruption would not work well in democracy. Since democracy eradicates corruption, it can bring about stability in a sense.
As mentioned by Kia Wei on his comments about the benefits and harms democracy might bring, he said that"democracy grants citizens freedom in making their choice", i agree with this point. Allowing the people to choose what they would like best will reduce the amount of disagreement or conflict that would arise. I would like to mention another example to further substantiate that point. Singapore will be a good example of a democratic country. Having progessed rapidly in recent years, many have attributed this to capable leaders and talents. However, I feel that being a democratic country actually plays a prt as well. Elections would occur once every 4 years. The sight of PAP dominating the elections without too much rebutalls is really pleasing to the eyes. The people have trust that PAP would bring about progress and stability in Singapore, hence their continuity as Singapore's greatest political party. This Singapore case studies show that democracy can indeed lead to stability in a country as the people have full confidence for the government they voted for.
Now on to the limitations.
Democracy gives rise to the issue of voting rights, which is something not that pleasant to deal with. Everyone wants to be part of the country, have a role in the state's affairs. Unfair division of voting rights would cause conflicts to arise. This is especially relevant for disadvantaged groups in a country. For instance, The Sri Lanka government only allows Sinhalse to vote whereas leaving the Tamil-Indians with no voting rights at all. This made te Indians very unhappy, which resulted in them protesting to gain their fair share of rights. Another example will be the case of the immigrants. Certain countries only allow citizens to vote during elections. However, immigrants, who toil for the country's economic development as well, were neglected. This made the immigrant feel that they are at a disadvantaged and that the government did not care about their interest and this might promt a conflict to occur. Thus, these two examples reveal how democracy gives rise to the issue of voting rights, which might lead to conflicts instead of creating stability.
My next point is in relation to Kia Wei's point on the majority and the minority. I agree on this point and will like to further explain it. One instance of the majority triumphing over the miniority is the Northern Ireland case study. The minority, Catholics, ofte nreceive unequal treatment and had no say in the state's issue as the government is Protestant-dominated.
Regarding Shaun Choo's counter argument on direct democracy, I have got a few more points to add and at the same time disagree with him.
Firstly, he questioned the purpose of a government when the government had no power and allowed the people to vote for their own policies that they wanted. I think that a government is still needed in that case as the government is still ultimately the one who allows the voting to proceed with valid reasons. They are the one who regulates peace and order, such as if the law or policy that is to be passed is viable or offensive in anyway to anyone. After this would only then they would allow the voting to take place. Therefore, they would considerably have control over the policies or laws that are to be passed. It is only on the part where the citizens are given more freedom of choice and power in making their stand that they do not have a say in. Therefore, I think that in direct democracy, a governing body is still required such that law and order is maintained and not just any laws or policies can be passed blindly.
I want to add on to concern over the amount of occasions whereby people have to make their votes and choices on certain policies and events. It is not about the government losing its power and say, but it is about the amount of resources and time wasted when every voting process is done just for the approval or disapproval or a certain issue. If the citizens had to vote every week over one policy, even a small one, there would be endless human resources wasted and time in which could have been put into better use. Whenever a voting is held, many things come to a stop. The shopping malls, the bank, the stock market. With so many disruptions in a voting, would not it be better that people be represented and only vote when a big and important decision is needed to be made. Imagine if all the time the citizens have spent voting is made into economic interest, wouldn't it allow the country to progress better rather than just wasting time on voting something that people might not even care or know what they are voting for after getting to immune to voting almost every week.
Therefore, I think direct democracy can be modified by a bit and thus make it more efficient for the ruling body and better for the state
According to different contexts, democracy might be viewed differently.
In developed countries, people are richer and tend to be inclined to want more freedom in the state affairs. In such a case, democracy might be applicable as people are able to have their freedom of choice.
However, in poorer countries, survival of the people comes as a priority to the government. In such a scenario, perhaps, there should be a government controlling the state's affairs and not leaving it to the people. This is so as to ogranise the limited resources available to ensure the survival of the people.
Democracy might hence be more applicable in developed countries as it would ensure social and political stability and not in poorer countries as allowing people the freedom of chioce would only result in more confusion.
anyways, i agree with Kia Wei's point on the people's perception. yes, the people's decisions and perceptions are very important in democracy. They are the ones that decide the leaders, so their mindsets do matter. this can ultimately lead to the downfall of democracy.
Life is full of conflicts, nothing can be smooth all the way. similarly, no one can think exactly the same thing with someone else. Different people in the country might have differing perspectives over which party should be the one that they would vote, as like i said earlier, people's perspectives are different. Hence although democracy provides more freedom to the people to elect who they want to be their leader, it does not mean that whoever you vote will win, as other people might think differently from you and vote other candidates. With this, more conflicts moght occur during the process of elections. For example, in Taiwan lately, opposing parties actually fought each other out, during a debate, physically due to political disparities, resulting in numerous casualties, creating conflict. In this case, democracy has basically caused a "war".
Hence democracy is not always good, and might mot bring about stability all the time.
11 comments:
Before we begin our discussion, it is important for us to define what it means by"democracy" and "stablility".
"Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives."
Quoted from Wikipedia
Bascially, in our own words. democracy is a political institution whereby people elects their own leaders thus in a way, they have the freedom to choose their government.
Next, the term"stability". What does it mean? Stability refers to thrree leage areas- economic stability, social stability and political stability. All factors converge, a country can be considered domestically peaceful.
I think democracy can bring about stability.
Democracy, as it is the voting of political leaders by the people themselves, hence there is more freedom for the people as they get to choose who to leawd them. This resolves racial and religious conflicts as they get to voice their opinions. For example, in singapore, a multiracianal country, each race gets a few seats in the parliament as they can get the support from their own race. This guarantees that the needs of the race is not neglected.
In my opinion, democracy would definitely bring about stability, but if we look it from another point of view, it can also bring harm.
Firstly, democracy would bring about democracy simply because it grants citizens freedom in making their choices. They choose who they want to represent them, and they gain power and authority in deciding the nation's affairs. An example would be that of Switzerland, where every week, citizens can vote to decide the new policies that the government is going to implement. People make their choices, making their voices heard. They are more influential, and they would not be manipulated by the government and have a right to their own life. Therefore democracy can bring about stability, since citizens would be satisfied as they are allowed to make choices, and that they are allowed to shape their lives themselves for their benefit.
However, there are limitations in implementing democracy too. Firstly, even though everyone is given a choice, eventually the majority's decision still overrules the minority's. The latter has no choice but to follow, and they might be prejudiced against since they are the minority and have differing views from the majority. Secondly, in accordance to what zhou minjian mentioned, each race gets a few seats in the parliament as they can get the support from their own race. This guarantees that the needs of the race is not neglected. I feel that this point could be rendered invalid, since if the race is a minority, then even if many of them vote for one person, their decision would still be overruled as stated above. Thirdly, chances of corruption increases. For example, one member of parliament could bribe another to vote for him/her in parliament when proposing a bill, or he/she could bribe others to vote for him/her during general elections. Because there are different choices, chances of corruption would increase. Lastly, if one party is overly-dominant, meaning it has representatives in almost every constituency, then it does not really matter what other parties have to offer, since they will eventually get more seats during the general elections. The outcome would be expected, since one party is dominating most of the seats, and the ruling party would likely be the one with the most representatives, and one that has support of the people. Therefore, democracy would not bring about stability.
In conclusion, I feel that democracy can bring about stability, but in some cases it cannot, as stated above.
Democracy is often seen as an ideal in society. It is believed to be able to bring about stability in a society as people have the freedom of choice to select their leaders. Basically, this ensures that there is no conflict when it comes to the election of the government.
There are two types of democracy- Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy.
Firstly, when I talk about Direct Democarcy, I refer to the situation whereby people can have a say to the issues of the country. Although it may seem that the government is running the job, it is actually the people who are controlling their decisions. To put it metaphorically, the people are just like the steering wheel of the government. This type of democracy can be seen in the western part of the world such as Switzerland and the USA.
How does this type of democracy lead to stability in a society?
It brings out issues which the elite surpress. This allows the people to voice out their concerns and not resort to violence to solve them. Indeed, this can bring about social stability in the country. For example, in Northern Ireland, political injustice is very evident. There is no such thing called democracy. The disadvantaged Catholics had no right to voice out their worries since the elite group of Northern Ireland, the Protestants, were controlling the issues of the country. This made them resort to violence to make their voice heard.
However, one concern over this type of democracy is that there might be too many occasions whereby people have to make their votes and choices on certain policies and events. In such a case,won't the government be considered void? Then, what is the point of having a government is the first place? Yes, people should have freedom over state affairs, but there is definitely a limit to it. Should the government has totally no control whatsoever on the state's policies, confusion and conflict among people will ensue as there is no fized authority to handle the issue.
Secondly, representative democracy. Bascially, it refers to voters choosing their representatives to act in their interests but not with enough authority to exercise new initiatives in circumstances.
It can stabilize our society in a way that should voters become unsatisfied with the elected representatives, representative democracy allows the recall of thse representatives. This is usedul to create stability in the government as corrupted leaders can be eradicated once exposed, to provide more chance for more capable leaders to prove their worth. In such a case, corruption would not be much of a problem for this type of democracy.
But then again, for this democracy to work, the most important variable would have to be the people's mindset. What if the people were influenced by the media or the corrupted leaders to vote for them? After all, democracy requires the people to make the right choice of who their leader should be. They are provided with the freedom, as long as they do not abuse it by influencing others to vote for a corrupted leader, democracy is an ideal. People's mindset is crucial in determining whether democracy can create stability or vice versa. Should their votes are for a capable leader, the country will blossom. Otherwise, the country will topple.
I shall elaborate on my point further.
I agree that democracy can bring about stability due to the following reason:
As stated earlier, democracy helps prevent racial prejudices and conflicts to a certain extent. Racial conflicts occur usually when a race is neglected or discriminated against by the government. This is mainly because of the presence of a dominating race in the country. However, if democracy is implemented, the minority or discriminated groups, if united, can win a few seats for political candidates that would voice out their grievances for them. with the presence of these people in the parliament, the minority or discriminated racial groups would be able to gain more respect and would not be discriminated against so much. According to Kia Wei, "since if the race is a minority, then even if many of them vote for one person, their decision would still be overruled as stated above." I agree with you Kia wei, but if the racial group is feeling discriminated, they must be of considerable size as they would not be able to voice out their grievances if they are that small. As these groups are not that small, they can make a difference when they are united, in worse cases, they would sill at least win one seat in the parliament, which still helps to mediate conflicts within a nation, bringing about stability.
From what I see, most of us have not shown why democracy does not work. If we look at it from its disadvantages, there are many points that could harm a country, and potentially "destroy" it.
As mentioned in my previous comment, I mentioned a few points regarding disadvanteages of democracy. There are many disadvantages, some even outweigh the advantages that democracy gives. Quoting Shaun choo, "Should their votes are for a capable leader, the country will blossom. Otherwise, the country will topple." Also, from a video I watched about democracy in class, "Do you want to give equal voting rights to a beggar and a scholar? The difference between them is too huge." A very important factor in determining whether democracy works out or not is the people. I agree with Shaun Choo on this point as he mentioned that a country would topple if a wrong leader is voted. This further enhances my point on why democracy is does not bring about stability. Although there are many other points stated that democracy can bring about stability, there are limitations and I have stated one of them above.
The question we should be asking is "Does democracy bring more benefits than harm?" My answer to that question would be that it depends. There are many dependent factors like mindsets of people, type of democracy in place, etc. If people vote for the right person, then obviously the state would blossom. Otherwise it would not.
Also, looking at Minjian's point, I see that it can bring about stability in some ways. Racial issues are of high importance, and after reading everyone's comments, I have slightly changed my viewpoint. I feel that democracy can stabilise a country, but only in certain cases. For me, it all boils down to the many dependent factors that affect people's decisions, and my stand is that "IT DEPENDS".
I agree that democracy can bring about stability due to the following reason:
democracy also can bring about stability as it can help to eractdicate corruption. when many people vote, there is a very low chance that the results all biasly twisted or corrupted. In the past, many nations adopt an monarchist political system, which involves corruption. In democracy, you can only stand a chance to lead if people vote for you, but if you want people to vote for you, you must show that you are outstanding through the various campaigns and speeches. If you are outstanding in your speeches, you would be able to get enough supporters and bribes would not be nessassary. Hence corruption is not easy to get involved here.
Kia wei said that "chances of corruption increases" It is true that candidates might resort to bribing for votes, but this is not very realistic. Think about it, will you vote for someone that has no ability to gain support through speeches and campaigns but need to resort to bribing? If your answer is yes, how many people do you think will think the same way as you? Will you risk destroying the nation for money?
with those questions in mind, i think not many people would vote for these kind of candidates because they are simply useless, so corruption would not work well in democracy. Since democracy eradicates corruption, it can bring about stability in a sense.
More general view on democracy now...
As mentioned by Kia Wei on his comments about the benefits and harms democracy might bring, he said that"democracy grants citizens freedom in making their choice", i agree with this point. Allowing the people to choose what they would like best will reduce the amount of disagreement or conflict that would arise. I would like to mention another example to further substantiate that point. Singapore will be a good example of a democratic country. Having progessed rapidly in recent years, many have attributed this to capable leaders and talents. However, I feel that being a democratic country actually plays a prt as well. Elections would occur once every 4 years. The sight of PAP dominating the elections without too much rebutalls is really pleasing to the eyes. The people have trust that PAP would bring about progress and stability in Singapore, hence their continuity as Singapore's greatest political party. This Singapore case studies show that democracy can indeed lead to stability in a country as the people have full confidence for the government they voted for.
Now on to the limitations.
Democracy gives rise to the issue of voting rights, which is something not that pleasant to deal with. Everyone wants to be part of the country, have a role in the state's affairs. Unfair division of voting rights would cause conflicts to arise. This is especially relevant for disadvantaged groups in a country. For instance, The Sri Lanka government only allows Sinhalse to vote whereas leaving the Tamil-Indians with no voting rights at all. This made te Indians very unhappy, which resulted in them protesting to gain their fair share of rights. Another example will be the case of the immigrants. Certain countries only allow citizens to vote during elections. However, immigrants, who toil for the country's economic development as well, were neglected. This made the immigrant feel that they are at a disadvantaged and that the government did not care about their interest and this might promt a conflict to occur. Thus, these two examples reveal how democracy gives rise to the issue of voting rights, which might lead to conflicts instead of creating stability.
My next point is in relation to Kia Wei's point on the majority and the minority. I agree on this point and will like to further explain it. One instance of the majority triumphing over the miniority is the Northern Ireland case study. The minority, Catholics, ofte nreceive unequal treatment and had no say in the state's issue as the government is Protestant-dominated.
Feel free to comment.
Regarding Shaun Choo's counter argument on direct democracy, I have got a few more points to add and at the same time disagree with him.
Firstly, he questioned the purpose of a government when the government had no power and allowed the people to vote for their own policies that they wanted. I think that a government is still needed in that case as the government is still ultimately the one who allows the voting to proceed with valid reasons. They are the one who regulates peace and order, such as if the law or policy that is to be passed is viable or offensive in anyway to anyone. After this would only then they would allow the voting to take place. Therefore, they would considerably have control over the policies or laws that are to be passed. It is only on the part where the citizens are given more freedom of choice and power in making their stand that they do not have a say in. Therefore, I think that in direct democracy, a governing body is still required such that law and order is maintained and not just any laws or policies can be passed blindly.
I want to add on to concern over the amount of occasions whereby people have to make their votes and choices on certain policies and events. It is not about the government losing its power and say, but it is about the amount of resources and time wasted when every voting process is done just for the approval or disapproval or a certain issue. If the citizens had to vote every week over one policy, even a small one, there would be endless human resources wasted and time in which could have been put into better use. Whenever a voting is held, many things come to a stop. The shopping malls, the bank, the stock market. With so many disruptions in a voting, would not it be better that people be represented and only vote when a big and important decision is needed to be made. Imagine if all the time the citizens have spent voting is made into economic interest, wouldn't it allow the country to progress better rather than just wasting time on voting something that people might not even care or know what they are voting for after getting to immune to voting almost every week.
Therefore, I think direct democracy can be modified by a bit and thus make it more efficient for the ruling body and better for the state
According to different contexts, democracy might be viewed differently.
In developed countries, people are richer and tend to be inclined to want more freedom in the state affairs. In such a case, democracy might be applicable as people are able to have their freedom of choice.
However, in poorer countries, survival of the people comes as a priority to the government. In such a scenario, perhaps, there should be a government controlling the state's affairs and not leaving it to the people. This is so as to ogranise the limited resources available to ensure the survival of the people.
Democracy might hence be more applicable in developed countries as it would ensure social and political stability and not in poorer countries as allowing people the freedom of chioce would only result in more confusion.
wow, this discussion is getting complicated.
anyways, i agree with Kia Wei's point on the people's perception. yes, the people's decisions and perceptions are very important in democracy. They are the ones that decide the leaders, so their mindsets do matter. this can ultimately lead to the downfall of democracy.
Life is full of conflicts, nothing can be smooth all the way. similarly, no one can think exactly the same thing with someone else. Different people in the country might have differing perspectives over which party should be the one that they would vote, as like i said earlier, people's perspectives are different. Hence although democracy provides more freedom to the people to elect who they want to be their leader, it does not mean that whoever you vote will win, as other people might think differently from you and vote other candidates. With this, more conflicts moght occur during the process of elections. For example, in Taiwan lately, opposing parties actually fought each other out, during a debate, physically due to political disparities, resulting in numerous casualties, creating conflict. In this case, democracy has basically caused a "war".
Hence democracy is not always good, and might mot bring about stability all the time.
Post a Comment