Ask any Asians around and they will tell you "2008 is a bad year". In just 6 months, we have experienced countless calls for democratization in Asia, where Activists demanded democracy in China and Myanmar. With democracy being seen as a necessary goal for all countries to achieve, all these seem to indicate that Francis Fukuyama's prediction of democracy being the ultimate end of history is going to come through after all. But the question here is "Does democracy even warrants stability in the first place?" "Is democracy that necessary after all?" Here, I chose the less Euro-centric view and thus oppose the motion.
The notion of democracy being “ruled by the people” is something proponents tend to argue for, where democracy, by relying on the "voting and choice" of people, empowers the public to choose their ideal political party. As such, for a government to be voted in, it requires the support of the public and the consensual agreement among the majority of the society, such that the democratic government not only legitimately rules over the land, but also legitimately rules over the hearts of the public. Democracy, as such, guarantees that only the most popular political party gets voted in, and with this premise, we do not see any reason for any societal revolutions whatsoever.
Further, given that the democratically elected government is vested with the mandate from the majority of the public into power and that their policies are catered to the majority of the population, it is henceforth highly unlikely for social turmoil, revolutions, riots, protests to be present since the nature of democracy seems to guarantee that the majority of the society supports the government.
Thus, the crux to maintaining societal peace and stability is thereby premised on the basis that it is necessary for the government to earn the mandate and the support from the majority of the society, as well as to cater to the needs of the majority of the population. These are all guaranteed under democracy which ensures that only the most popular political party will rule and will necessarily cater to the needs of the majority of the population, of which prevents any possibility of societal instability. Singapore, for example, illustrates this perfectly: Though Singapore may be considered Socialist by many, the reason why she is consistently ranked one of the most stable countries in the world (1) was that the PAP regime had legitimized their rule with democracy. By simply ‘manipulating’ democracy at their own will and introducing incentives (2), PAP had succeeded in appealing to the needs of the majority of the Singapore citizens, earning their popular vote and ultimately their mandate, legitimizing PAP’s rule over the country.
Evidently, Democracy had granted Singapore this mandate of the people, such that with the “support of the majority population”, it is of no wonder why Singapore’s society is generally stable.
The second factor where proponents will agree to is that democracy ensures stability in the political arena as each democratic country necessarily comes with a constitution (3), a set of norms for a democratic government to follow and also to prevent any major changes to the political status quo.
Democracy necessarily comes with a strong constitution, where a unifying consensus among the people and the legislative has to be reached in order to change a constitution, which is generally omnipotent and hardly subjected to change given that a super-majority of 2/3 of the parliament is needed to approve a certain change to the constitution. Democracy prevents this from happening too often where the nature of men being polymorphic and the minute chances of achieving a unifying consensus among the public over a political view, makes it inevitable for a strong opposition party to be present in the government. The presence of an opposition will thereby prevent the ruling party from reaching the 2/3 majority needed to radically alter the constitution. USA for example, had made only 26 amendments to the constitution since the 1800s where the Pennsylvanian Constitution was first enacted, safeguarding the political status quo even after 3 centuries. This echoes Francis Fukuyama (4) who stated in his “The end of History”, that with the end of World War 2, all countries will move towards democracy, the ultimate end-point of Men’s history. Fukuyama’s view is also premised on the basis of a strong Constitution such that the nature of democracy and constitution will prevent any major political upheavals in the political arena, maintaining the status quo of stability.
Now, moving on to the downside of democracy, we see that while proponents had repeatedly emphasized on the idea of "Rule by the people" which democracy promises, it is sad to note that this principle will not stand in today’s context, and had instead "degraded" into what’s commonly known now as the "tyranny of the majority".
Human nature and democracy have to be blamed for this, in that when democracy is implemented, it tends to sideline and isolate the minorities such that the government’s policies will only be catering to the majority of the population, neglecting the minority of the population at the same time though. Men, being power-hungry by nature, will then exploit this very nature of democracy such that the majority of the society, in their attempts to be “powerful” in the country, used this power of the majority to push for policies favoring only the majority of the population, while at the same time, necessarily sidelining the minorities. This is thereby what we called the “Tyranny of the Majority” (5) .The notion of the Tyranny of the Majority had also caused much problems to the society, as seen from the LTTE Crisis in Sri Lanka where the Sinhalese-dominated-government, in a bid to establish the Sinhalese supremacy in Sri Lanka, created policies catered predominantly to the Sinhalese, hoping to suppress and dominate the Tamils, which subsequently led to social and political instability, where the Tamil minorities revolt in response to the government's actions.
Truth be told, Democracy does guarantee the mandate from the majority of the population, but it does not guarantee that the minority group will not revolt or terrorize the state, as it tends to marginalize the minorities (6). As illustrated, the exploitation of democracy by Men had degraded democracy to nothing more than tyranny of the majority resulting in serious socio-political disorder. But, is this the stability democracy seeks to achieve for in the first place? (7) No!
Democracy relies on yet another assumption as well, where it assumes that the voters are educated and are able to reason out what are good political parties and what policies are beneficial to the country. This is the problem of democracy, such that in countries where voters are ignorant over the constitution and the policies of political parties and are easily swayed by charismatic oratory, they have a high tendency of voting blindly, without considering the implications of these policies after being implemented in the society, and many a time, resulting in the country landing on the wrong hands. Hitler’s example illustrated this point perfectly where his charisma earned him the popular vote need to control the Reichstag, and with the mandate from the voters, he massacred the Hebrews, rendering social and political instability, ultimately bringing the downfall of Nazi Germany.
Further, in the case of Argentina where both Eva Peron’s (8) charisma and the popularity of Juan Peron managed to sway the voters into loving and voting for them, giving them the mandate to dominate Argentinean politics for over 50 years. Their controversial rule, however, brought about political instability, where two different coups were orchestrated by the junta during the Peron Regime. (9)
These two examples had clearly articulated the pitfalls of democracy. By placing the great responsibility of “Ruling the country” on the people, it is premised on the assumption that the voters are able to reason out and differentiate between the good and bad political parties, but we see that this often not the case where in less developed countries, (10) conscientious stupidity and ignorance of these people over voting processes had clearly destroyed the validity of democracy creating stability in the society. It is with this where we say that Democracy is thereby a big mistake when implemented as it is ultimately a mere quantitative representation of interests instead of a qualitative representation of interests by the public; without the premise of well-educated public voters, we see no hope of democracy creating stability within the society.
Thus, I disagree with this motion, in that we need to understand that ultimately, democracy will not work as after all, it is based on too many assumptions, of which many nations are unable to work accordingly. Democracy can deliver its promise only on the assumption that Men have no vested interests when voting and that Men are qualified to vote and reason. But as seen from various examples, we now know that it is evident that countries will not be able to fully comply with these high standards of democracy. Given that Humans are greedy, selfish, power-hungry by nature, it is impossible for them to vote without any vested interests at all. Ultimately, democracy is a system that can only be validated on philosophical standings, but will necessarily fail to produce the results in a realistic situation as brought up earlier.
The crises of LTTE, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, have clearly shot down the clichéd democracy view of “Rule by the people”, and replace it with a more appropriate “Tyranny by the majority”. We see how democracy can render instability to a society; we see how voters without formal education can vote the wrong party with the wrong policies into power, ultimately misleading the country. These examples are more than enough to prove that democracy ultimately exists as mere philosophical ponderings by Men and will never be fulfilled.
While our Western Counterparts can rattle on and on about the idea of “Ruled by the People” and the notion of stability etc, we have to realize that these are all empty promises that works only on theory and when put into action, it cannot produce the same kind of promises it made.
So perhaps, H L Mencken was right when he blasted democracy as a popular fallacy, “Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven”.
Sad to say, empty promises really don’t count.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Footnotes
(1) In a recent Time Survey, Singapore was ranked 33rd out of more than 200 countries surveyed, as being one the most stable countries in the world.
(2) Economic stimulus packages, Upgrading of HDB Estates, billion dollar economic incentives are just some of the political tactics played by the PAP government to appeal to the majority of the population, thereby earning their mandate
(3) Although each country has the right to draft out their own constitution, most democratic countries generally follow a universal norm, which their constitutions will be based on.
(4) Francis Fukuyama in his “The End of History” asserted that the end of WW2 brings an end to the once multi-polar world such that countries will slowly move towards democracy. This democratization process is something linear and non-reversible and is the ultimate end of Men’s progress.
(5) This can be reiterated by Thomas Jefferson who interestingly claimed that democracy is a case where"51% of the people are right and the other 49% of the people are wrong" , highlighting the quantitative nature of democracy instead of the more preferred qualitative one.
(6) Minorities here refer to a small percentage of the population who has a different political view from the majority of the population and/or are ethically/religiously outnumbered people, who tend to lose out due to marginalization from the government and the lack of a say in the government.
(7) As stated by Agnes Repplier “Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements”, indeed, we see that democracy’s ideas on “rule by the people” will work theoretically, but sadly we now know that nothing was and will be accomplished when applied realistically.
(8) This lady, commonly known as Evita, was so influential and charismatic such that she dominated Argentina’s politics and was loved by the people. The Song “Don’t cry for me, Argentina” was a ballad written in memory of her. This goes to show the extent of influence she had on the population with her charismatic oratory.
(9) Under the Perons, thousands of political dissidents were killed for opposing their controversial rule.
(10) It is interesting to note that even voters in the model for democracy, USA, are still unable to vote without any vested interests of white men supremacy, where Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire was largely attributed to the majority Whites being unable to vote without having any vested interests of race supremacy.
References:
1. Jalal Barzanji, Eawar Advantages. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from Advantages Web site: http://www.dengekan.com/papulakan/2005/8/ewarJalalBarznjei24.htm
2.Watson, Patrick, & Barber, Benjamin (1988). The struggle for democracy.Canada: Canadian Catalouging in Publication Data.
3.Mill, John (1859). John Stuart Mill's essay on liberty. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from On Liberty Web site: www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
