SS Democracy Discussion

Aditya: You know, the best democracy is one where there is good debate andrebuttal. The essence of democratic decisions lies in weighing ofconflicting ideas, for which reprimanding, rebuking and healthy debatein crucial.This allows us to weigh the pros and cons of any decision that can bemade, and take one which is the most beneficial for the people.Perhaps this is one of the major political aspects of a parliamentarydemocracy.Democrats are politically aware and intellectual people. People puttheir trust in them, and that is why they are givena platform (theparliament itself) to argue and solicit their point of views andadvocate the needs of people, better if different parts of the society.In a massive parliament all ideas of all groups can be adressed, andas a major feature of democracy is to take central decisions, what isdone is fair, just and generally for the better of the people.Consider this :2 farmer brothers have a dispute over how to divide their father'sland. If cut in two halves, one side has a well while the other hasmore fertile land.A democratic agreement would be that one brother (randomly chosen)will divide the land, and the other will chose his piece first. In theevnt that neither are satisfied, there can be epaceful negotiation.Perhaps the best decision may be that they share the land for mutualbenefit, but the liberty of this decision is solely upto them.In this way democracy not only through political and economic liberty,and political equality resolve what could have been a bloody ormacabre affair with justice, it also leaves them the option ofmutually helping others. Democracy ensures the human rights of both,and makes sure this conflcit neevr gets violent.If sharing is considered a communist or socialist ideal then be it.Democracy respects it and allows it to be undertaken amongst thebrothers with arms wide open. The ultimate goal is resolution, peaceand prosperity, which are all achieved through this liberty thatdemocracy gives.

Xin Yong: This is the essay question we are supposed to do..Firstly, we have to understand that that is zero-conflict countries,even if they do abide to democracy fiercely, this is because democracyis a system wher majority rules, and there would always be conflictsbetween the 2 grps, like the clashes of ideals, but conflict does notmean that violence is invovled. there may be peaceful conflictshappening too.Next up, if you would take a look at the question, it says thatdemocracy creates stability in society, but, i think that democracydoes not create stability, but instead, it is more of a foundation thatstability builds on.

Xin Yong: I agree with Aditya's point more. As clarified in the earlier posts,Democracy is about majority rules (yes, cuicheng i know youhighlighted this point), and that you claimed that the stability onlyexist between Government and Majority, and thats why there would beclashes between ideals, causing a rise in riots, tiffs..But, in a democratic country, it should mean that all citizens haveequal rights and treatments from the government, and that we have theright to the freedom of speech and movement, thus there should be noconflict as there would definitely be compromises between the 2groups- majority and minority. Firstly, i would say that Cuicheng iscorrect in saying that peace between government and the people ismaintained because the Government is providing the people with equaltreatments, but then cuicheng go on and stated that there would beclashes between the majority and minority. If a country is trulydemocratic, the ideals of the 2 groups will be simultaneouslyhappening and progressing because of the freedom of movement, anddefinitely, there should be political parties representing thecitizens of the minority, and this would be like in Singapore, andSingapore is peaceful with no riots happening, right?Finally, Cuicheng's last point that democracy would not help toprevent conflict between the 2 grps if their ratios are roughly thesame, i agree with his statement as even though the influential powersof the Majority might not be much greater than the minority's ones,and that if everyone is given 1 vote, naturally the majority would winout, but by a very slight margin, and the minority would not be verypleased because the majority won only through sheer numbers, thus thisMAY result in a conflict.In conclusion,i would say that democracy is a political system thatguarantees that sovereignty belonged to the people, but it is only oneof many systems that people have; it mainly regulates the politicallives of people and it cannot replace the other systems and it cannotregulate everything in people's lives. Democracy has its internallimitations, it is not a cure-all miracle medicine and it cannot solveall of humankind's problems. But democracy guarantees basic humanrights, it offers equal opportunity to people and it is a basic humanvalue. Democracy is not only a means to solve people's livelihoodissues, but it is a goal of human development; it is not only a toolto achieve other goals, but it is in accord with human nature. Evenif there is the best food and housing available, the human characteris incomplete without democratic rights.

Aditya: Excellent find. Regarding the previous issue, concerning protectionof the constitution, such that it in turn can defend human rightsand the democracy in action and truth, is best exhibited in aparliamentary democracy.Here, a dictator such as president or prime minister cannotillicitly usurp the powrful yet responsible position. This isbecause, for every amendment of the constitution, a major part ofthe representative parliament (70-80%) has to vote in favour of thechange. This would not then be implemented unless 70%+representatives of the people are corrupt. And that they cannot be.But what do we do in case an entire political body is corrupt? Insuch a case, a system where the consultation of every citizen in thenation ( i.e. a referendum or consensus) based on fair practicesshould be mandatory. It may be said that this is aconsensus/direct/interactive democracy, but not entirely.Note that the vote is only needed for change in constitution, whichis a major change as compared to passing of bills or laws that canbe undertaken as done normally in parliamentary democracy.Additionally, with the new technology and advancement incommunication and telecom facilities, large-scale consensus is soongoing to be much easier (through internet, gizmos etc.) and seems apromising form for the 'ideal' democracy, where every person has animportant role in every decision the government takes.An example of parliamentary democracy is again, India. In terms ofconstitutional amendments, it has been stable so far.

Cui Cheng: Could you futher elaborate on how has democract has helped Liberia restore peace and stability?I feel that democracy is able to establish stability as it considers the majorty's stand. As majority of the people are able to get along their way, they would be satiasfied with the situations and no confilict would arise. This stability is only applicable to the political aspect the way I see it as the only stability is that between that of the government and the maojority of the people. Socially, democracy's effect upon stability is limited as it would normally between the majority and the minority that the problems and confilicts arise, as their ideals clash. Democracy in this situation does nothing to stabilize the situation of the tension between the majority and the minrotiy groups. Democracy does has its reach on the stability of a country as it is. The goverment would constantly try to achive a comprimise between the different groups to satisfy everyone to maintain stability.Take Taiwan for example, when the "majority" is only slightly larger than that of the minroity, there would be a growing voice of opposition in the political stage as the majority is not influencial enough in terms of numbers.I feel that democracy helps to prevent conflict between the government and the people, but not that between that of the majority and minority groups, especially when the ratio is roguhly the same.

Jerome: One example of stability achieved in a country is Liberia, a countrylocated at the west coast of Africa.Liberia suffered civil wars from around 1989 until 2003, in which,democracy has helped her restore peace and stability. In 2005,president election was successfully held in liberia, new policieswere made my the president,Johnson Sirleaf including encouragingforeign investments and eliminating corruption, this brought an endto the 15 year unstability in Liberia. In which democracy played animportant role as everyone are represented in the liberian society,where conflict is reduced because people are able to choose their ownrepresentative in the paliarment.One more example of a new born democracy country is Mongolia, in the1990s, democracy activists triggered a revolution against thecommunist government, few years later, Mongolia's government systenbecame a democratic one, headed by a president and a prime minister.Democracy allows Mongolia to engage herself in building relationshipswith the other parts of the world, which made Mongolia aninternationally recognised country and also helped Mongolia build itsdiplomatic relations with other countries.These two examples have shown how democracy can bring about economyimprovements and diplomatic relations in the country, thus i thinkthat democracy has the ability to create stability in a country.Jerome: I feel that democracy is good for a country as everyone in the countrycan be represented in a democratic government. It is fair to variousethnic and religious groups and their views can be expressed andrecognised in a system of democracy. The most common forms of democracyare representative democracy, liberal democracy and paliarmentarydemocracy. All these forms of democracy requires people of the countryto vote and choose for their government. I think democracy serves as aplatform for all to express their view, their problems and theirbenefits and i think democracy is a good system in which countriesshould regulate democracy.

Xin Yong: I think that while it is good in this sense that the US 2 partysystem may be effective,but isnt this contradictory if we apply this2 party system to the war on terrorism? US tackles the problem bothby promoting democracy as well as through realistic actionsby "befriending" more other countries such that US would not be alonein the war of terrorism.In a democractic system, i think that it is important such that theparties are able to express themselves freely, be able to developthemselves, and to have the freedom of move and choice, thus i do notthink that the US democractic system is too "active".

Xin Yong: I shall list one example of a country following democracy as well asnot following democracy. Firstly, i think that the United States is avery good example as it offers a conflict btwn the 2 subjects.> Firstly, when George Bush has decided to promote democracy during theperiod where the US was fighting the war on terrorism, because a lot ofpoliticians under Bush believed that giving equal rights, benefits, etcetc to people will help solve the problem in a peaceful manner, butBush felt that this was an idealistic notion.So, Bush at that time also contemplated another approach, and he wasmaking "friends" with dictators with resources to aid him in fightingAL-Qaeda in the war against terrorism, but this approach would not bean act of democracy,but more of a realism notion,so theres a conflict,bewtween whether they should promote democracy or use realism methods.

Bhargav: I have been researching. One of the prime goals of the constitutionis to limit government powerand specify political, and socio-economic goals, belief andstructure of a country. We are basically looking forCONSTITUTIONALISM.The Bill of Rights is are followed for judicial practices thatsafeguard fundamental, civiland social rights independent of the government.But it can only safeguard rights directly against opression,violence and harm. We are supposedto devise aspects or point out some pre-existing systems thatprevent POLITICAL EXPLOITATION.In that sense, even holding onto power is illegal, past a term.Check this out :Amending the ConstitutionThe recent Senate debate over a proposed constitutional amendmentdealing with desecration of the U.S. flag raises the question ofexactly how the Constitution can be amended. (See Anti-Flag BurningAmendment Debated in Senate.)Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by whichamendments can be proposed and approvedCongress proposes amendments.As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses ofCongress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for theamendment. The resolution does not require the president'ssignature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must thenbe "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths ofthe states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven yearsfor ratification by the states.The states propose amendments.The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for aconvention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed.Amendments proposed by the convention would again requireratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have beenadded through the first method. The Constitution has never beenamended using the second process.While over 10,000 have been proposed, only seventeen amendments tothe Constitution have been adopted since final ratification of theBill of Rights in 1791.(Source :usgovinfo.about.com/library/blconstamend.htm )I think the above has ensured that there are no objectionableamendments. In terms of active democracy,US has enjoyed a two party system.What do u say?

Bhargav: Before we even jump to democracy...lets ask this question. What is thefirst, foremost and the ultimate goal of a government? Is it not thehappiness and welfare of the people above all?Undeniably, happiness of people comes from freedom, equality, rightsand material benefits and securities like health, education, food andfundamentals. And just as unfortunately, todays government forms failto provide all the above. Dont they?I say communist government sacrifices liberty and personal rights,promising equality of all kinds and social and general well-being, ifnot prosperity. But this, does not work in cohesion with thepropensities of human nature, to have a notch above the rest. Intoday's world, to achieve this, people dont mind going the extra mile.So why waste talent and potential? Moreover, communist governmentsthat have clenched economic control havent really exemplified veryhappy citizenry or productive economic growth. Moreover, the rule isestablished through violence and suppression of pre-existing forms,which is blatant violation of human rights.But hey...not all democracies have been succesful. Many a times,democracies have been brought to an end by illegitimate amendment ofthe constitution by the political head, as happened inPakistan.President/Military General Pervez Musharaff modified theconstitution several times deigning himself legal right to continuehis term far longer than appropriate.How can we secure a democracy inthat way...when nothing binding can restrict the rule and authourityof the body in power?