Democracy Creates Stability

Blog 2- Democracy Creates Stability

“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” - Aristotle

This quote best epitomizes the sphere democracy works around. Its key pillars include equal rights for all, liberty, and sharing of power. In this essay, I would be taking a pro-democratic stand as I would explain how it helps to achieve stability in a society. I would be categorizing my essay into two main parts which would aid me show how democracy creates stability. These two sub-parts are a) confluence vs. clash of ideals leading to sharing of power b) Democracy in comparison to other political systems and how it fares better.

Before that let me define the terms for the discussion. By stability it is meant the country has reached a good economic status (by good we mean where the unemployment rate is not high, good economic returns per annum) It also means that there is social cohesion and it is a tightly-knit society. Basically, we are analyzing if a system where people vote the politicians into power simplistically can transform a society into a stable one. Here, we would have to exclude a few isolated examples or instances from this discussion for easier evaluation. For example, it is pivotal that we do not take a Pakistan (after state of emergency was called) as an example. At that point of time, due to the fraction in the society a dictatorship was needed to create stability. Here, we are seeing normal countries without any external influences (ie. War, state of emergency)

Confluence vs. clash of ideals leading to sharing of power

We see that one of the main qualms about democracy is that there is a clash of ideals. It is important that we compare China and India. When China was able to build their new Beijing airport, there was an awe mixed with disbelief. This disbelief is because their communist regime was able to displace so many peasants for building the airport. However, this cannot be done in India where it takes an average of a few years to pass a bill in court. This means that the progress of the nation as a whole is slow. While that is symptom the problem is because there is a clash of ideals.

For example, recently in Zimbabwe a presidential candidate was actually attacked. This case never came up when Mugabe was dictating. It is the nature of a dictatorship. There is no clash of ideals because the system revolves around one person. In India, there is often a clash of religion through politics (BJP-Hindu stand)

However, even with these problems, democracy breeds open discussion. It is a place for a debate and the system is designed in such a way as to help the common man. We see this because there is a retribution corner and the ballot box plays an important role in reflecting the society’s perceptions and beliefs. This can be seen in Malaysia’s recent elections when the UMNO was upstaged and it was a sign that their “bumiputra” policy was not going on too well with the masses. We see that when there is open discussion, when there is a merger of thoughts and alliances in the society it does not breed fraction. It breeds a society where there is a confluence of varying thoughts on how to improve the overall working condition of the people. So, when there is a confluence of thoughts, what does this lead to? This leads to a sharing of power and active citizenry. As said before, the ballot box plays an important role. In democracy, each citizen has an important role to play. He is the one who chooses his next leader and determines which way the country is going to move.

This means that there is a sharing of power. In what sense is there a sharing of power? Just like Newton’s third law where every action has an equal and opposite reaction, for every action which the government takes there may be a response from the society. What do political commentaries suggest? They suggest an open society which is critical of the government’s policies. While a pessimist may look at it as a failed democracy, it is important that freedom of speech and expression is not curtailed too much. What does too much mean? We say too much when third party harm is caused and the rights of another person are infringed upon. So, this key pillar of democracy open discussion which takes root from the confluence of thoughts has to be retained.

So, from here we see that due to there being responsibility on the people, there would a self-chose path of prosperity and stability. Also, when there is open discussion it finally leads to a point where there is equilibrium. This equilibrium would rather be relative and set by the people than absolute set by the government. This free society would have its pro and cons but would definitely not hinder the stability as there would be cheques and balances which ensure that no third party harm is being caused at any point of time. This cheques and balances also ensure that stability in the society is maintained all through.

Democracy in Comparison to other political systems

It is important to analyse how democracy fares in comparison to other political systems when it comes to creating stability. I would be mainly comparing it to communism and dictatorship.

Democracy vs. Communism/Dictatorship/
Only when democracy is compared against other political systems such as communism, dictatorship and capitalism one would know its true value. This comparison would aid in passing a value-judgment on democracy when it comes to creating stability.

Let us first compare democracy with communism. Basically, communism is a political system which dissolves class struggle. It makes each person believe that they are in no way inferior to the others and the people share the goods of the state equally and the concept of private property is eliminated. Based on Marxist-communism, one party controls all state-owned products and distributes to the people equally regardless of their contribution to the economy. However, how does communism create stability? Communism creates stability because it essentially welfare-oriented towards the people. Everyone is given equal rights and opportunities to succeed. This means that there would be no class struggle. When there is no class struggle, it is assumed that there would be social cohesion. Due to this free society which is stateless, it is assumed that there would be very few conflicts. Here, we need to analyze when conflicts would be formed. Conflicts would be formed mainly when there are differences. For example, let us take Cuba as an example. Recently, an article stated that Cuba had the most people living above the age of 100. The reasons cited were motivations of the people and political climate. Motivations of the people is an important factor as well. In a democratic state, where everything is based on meritocracy, the push to be better is very high. However, communism which breeds a stateless society also brings about laziness in people. However the question here is on stability.

Democracy when compared to communism may bring about more societal upheaval. However, at the same time, this is a positive change which would phase out over time. In a communist regime, where human rights are compensated (ie. China vs Tibet) the propensity of damage is high. When the damage does hit, it would be difficult to manage as well. Let us take China as an example. While the communist regime had its benefits, now they are seen in a bad light by the western world due to their actions concerning Tibet. Due to that, China is cracking now. Also, due to everyone being given equal benefits regardless of their input, the better ones may raise up an issue over this. This would mean that while communism does represent a classless society, there are indeed hidden cliques which the system is tapering over. This can be seen even in China where their political system is more capitalist-communist rather than pure communist.

So, from here we see that democracy which has its key pillars of strength in promoting meritocracy, opportunities based on performance and quality through action (ballot-box) is a safer bet for stability in the long run. This is proven by the number of countries who endorse democracy to endorsing communism.

Now, let me compare democracy with dictatorship. There has often been a debate whether a prosperous dictatorship is better than a weak democracy. The debate has two spectrums. One is the direct, literal comparison between prosperous and weak. The other comparison is between democracy and dictatorship. However, for this evaluation process, it is only fair if we take that both systems are at its best. Only then can a value-judgment be passed on which system is better. It has to be admitted that a dictatorship, a political system controlled by one person alone would be useful in a state of emergency. For example, Musharaff was a dictator, army-general. Hitler was another one.

These people who led alone were able to create a stable society once they took over. Musharaff took over Pakistan after a period of turmoil and established excellent foreign relations with the West. The main advantage of a dictatorship is the curtailing of opinions. Although surprising, a dictatorship means that people are aligned to one man’s wishes. There would be no conflict and everyone would be led in this path. A very stable society is formed. However, the problem arises when this person is suppressing and oppressing the people. The people now do not have a safety net. They cannot rely on another party to challenge them through elections or referendums. When this is the case, a dictatorship would fall apart.

Dictatorships do create stability but they are only knee-jerk reactions to state of emergencies. They would not be able to create a state of equilibrium where everyone’s opinions are reflected. This is because as a singular person is leading, there would be a bias and slant towards his own vested interests as well.

So from here, I have proven how democracy which endorses confluence is better than the dictatorship which works as a remediation and not as a permanent system. Therefore, through this essay, I have also proven in two ways how democracy does create stability in a society.