Hey Mush and Kaitsi (:
In response to Mush's question, Ancient Rome and Greece are the earliest forms of democratic governments, and in fact, the concept of democracy came into place from the Ancient Greeks. Remember the word "democracy" came from the Greek terms δήμος (dēmos), "demon" and κράτος (state), "rule, strength"? Anyway, that was just some trivial, on to serious matters.
One extremely crucial argument, in my opinion, that has been raised so far would be this clinching statement that Kaitsi made, "Democracy free of corruption becomes a stable form of government not because it is the most perfect but because it is the least imperfect. It offers fair chances to everyone and the right to be heard. While your opinion may not be taken seriously, democracy is stable simply because just by allowing free speech, it promotes openness and honesty."
In my opinion, this can be our clinching statement, which fits in well with the original definition supplemented, in which we established that the "democracy" that we will be henceforth discussing about will the democracy in its theoretical form, rather than physical manifestation.
Developing further on this idea however, I feel that Kaitsi's statement about democracy being the least imperfect amongst all forms of government should be further discussed. After all, in this essay topic, another facade of the question involves the superiority of democracy in enhancing stability within society with regards to other forms of government.
In response to Mush, I feel that because of the theoretical and loose form of democracy, it is inevitable that many different forms of democracy would arise, all based on the same simplistic founding principles that the democracies are based on: which is basically the power of the people. However, before we start launching into debates of which form of democracy is the most effective, how about we look at it this way: despite the different forms of democracy, in general, does democracy create stability in society? Do all these forms create stability within society?
What I am suggesting here is that instead of looking at the different manifestations of democracy as separate units, how about we combine them, and look at them as single, coherent theory to allow us to better debate this topic.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Reply to Kai Tsi (=
I quote from Kai Tsi's post, "Democracy free of corruption becomes a stable form of government not because it is the most perfect but because it is the least imperfect. It offers fair chances to everyone and the right to be heard. While your opinion may not be taken seriously, democracy is stable simply because just by allowing free speech, it promotes openness and honesty." Unquote.
Democracy in itself can be manifested in many different ways. This is in line with what I said earlier, that democracy is simply a theory that might be implemeted differently by different groups of people. The different examples of democracy would be anticipatory democracy, athenian democracy, consensus democracy, grassroots democracy, illiberal democracy, etc. However, ther is one form of democracy that has proved quite successful for a particular country.
I am referring to constitutional democracy and its implementation in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is one of the few developing countries that has sustained a constitutional democracy. The success of democracy in Costa Rica is largely attributed to sensible policies. In Costa Rica, the president is prohibited by the constitution from serving a second term. The constitution also balances the power of the executive and the legislative branches, and encourages cooperation within a legislature that often does not have a single-party majority. The political economy in Costa Rica is market oriented. The government has balanced some controls on the private sector and the protection of workers' rights with policies that encourage and subsidize private farmers and business entrepreneurs. However, economic and social inequalities remain. Having said that, we must also take into account that Costa Ricans enjoy the highest standard of living in all of Central America, with a solid economic growth. Thus, we can see that even though there might be inequalities in the society, and people might still be unhappy, democracy that has been implemented with sensible policies can still create peace and stability in society.
So there you go Kai Tsi, you can use this as an example for your point (=
Democracy in itself can be manifested in many different ways. This is in line with what I said earlier, that democracy is simply a theory that might be implemeted differently by different groups of people. The different examples of democracy would be anticipatory democracy, athenian democracy, consensus democracy, grassroots democracy, illiberal democracy, etc. However, ther is one form of democracy that has proved quite successful for a particular country.
I am referring to constitutional democracy and its implementation in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is one of the few developing countries that has sustained a constitutional democracy. The success of democracy in Costa Rica is largely attributed to sensible policies. In Costa Rica, the president is prohibited by the constitution from serving a second term. The constitution also balances the power of the executive and the legislative branches, and encourages cooperation within a legislature that often does not have a single-party majority. The political economy in Costa Rica is market oriented. The government has balanced some controls on the private sector and the protection of workers' rights with policies that encourage and subsidize private farmers and business entrepreneurs. However, economic and social inequalities remain. Having said that, we must also take into account that Costa Ricans enjoy the highest standard of living in all of Central America, with a solid economic growth. Thus, we can see that even though there might be inequalities in the society, and people might still be unhappy, democracy that has been implemented with sensible policies can still create peace and stability in society.
So there you go Kai Tsi, you can use this as an example for your point (=
Reply to Greg (=
A quest for utopia would be highly impractical in today's world. A utopia is a perfect state where everyone is equal. However, we know that this is not possible in today's world. It might work in theory, but not in the real world. We have seen from examples in History that leaders who strived to create a utopian state always ended up as a communist one. Therefore, we would be digressing from our discussion.
To bring us back in focus, I agree that the 'pockets of flaws' hinder peace and stability in a society, but we have to take note that these flaws are not with the system of democracy but rather with the way people implement it. In theory, democracy should create peace and stability however, practically, it is impossible due to one added factor--the human factor, which is a great variable.
And just a random thought, can Ancient Greece/Rome be used as an example for a democratic state?
To bring us back in focus, I agree that the 'pockets of flaws' hinder peace and stability in a society, but we have to take note that these flaws are not with the system of democracy but rather with the way people implement it. In theory, democracy should create peace and stability however, practically, it is impossible due to one added factor--the human factor, which is a great variable.
And just a random thought, can Ancient Greece/Rome be used as an example for a democratic state?
Conclusion: Part One
Greg raised an interesting point--he said that: "Because of these pockets of factions with resisting ideals, perfect stability in society would hence be impossible, since social coherence would be impossible with discontent within the society." Unfortunately I must disagree with this point. While I do agree to some extent that the minority view is often overlooked in the majority spirit of democracy, I do not think it will cause discontent to the point of disrupting social coherence. The public may be dissatisfied because they feel their views are neglected, or certain rights their factions deserve in their eyes are denied. But in order to disrupt social coherence, a rift must develop between the peoples, or unified strife.
In some democratic countries, for example, homosexual views are often under attack by religion and they often feel their gay rights, so to speak, are denied to them. However, they choose to express their discontent in other, non-violent ways, such as parades and festivals (!) which do not disrupt social coherence.
While people are naturally protective of their freedom of speech and the right to be heard, I believe that they equally, if not more, desire a stable environment and the right to settle down and/or raise a family. It is most likely that the people of a democracy will only revolt (an social coherence disruptor) when their ability to lead stable and comfortable lives are hampered. Take for example, the Jim Crow laws disrupted social coherence in America because the blacks felt (correctly) that they were being unfairly discriminated against. Their personal lives were at stake because of their skin color, which was unfair. The result? Riots and fighting, especially from whites who stubbornly clung on to their supremacist values.
Hence, social coherence is not impossible even with discontent in society.
Moving on, discontent in society is unavoidable. There will always be some small minority, somewhere, that will suffer as a result of policies or laws meant to protect or benefit the large majority of people. What we should be focusing on today is how democracy creates stability, not complete satisfaction among its people.
Democracy free of corruption becomes a stable form of government not because it is the most perfect but because it is the least imperfect. It offers fair chances to everyone and the right to be heard. While your opinion may not be taken seriously, democracy is stable simply because just by allowing free speech, it promotes openness and honesty.
That's my opinion, anyway-do feel free to correct me.
In some democratic countries, for example, homosexual views are often under attack by religion and they often feel their gay rights, so to speak, are denied to them. However, they choose to express their discontent in other, non-violent ways, such as parades and festivals (!) which do not disrupt social coherence.
While people are naturally protective of their freedom of speech and the right to be heard, I believe that they equally, if not more, desire a stable environment and the right to settle down and/or raise a family. It is most likely that the people of a democracy will only revolt (an social coherence disruptor) when their ability to lead stable and comfortable lives are hampered. Take for example, the Jim Crow laws disrupted social coherence in America because the blacks felt (correctly) that they were being unfairly discriminated against. Their personal lives were at stake because of their skin color, which was unfair. The result? Riots and fighting, especially from whites who stubbornly clung on to their supremacist values.
Hence, social coherence is not impossible even with discontent in society.
Moving on, discontent in society is unavoidable. There will always be some small minority, somewhere, that will suffer as a result of policies or laws meant to protect or benefit the large majority of people. What we should be focusing on today is how democracy creates stability, not complete satisfaction among its people.
Democracy free of corruption becomes a stable form of government not because it is the most perfect but because it is the least imperfect. It offers fair chances to everyone and the right to be heard. While your opinion may not be taken seriously, democracy is stable simply because just by allowing free speech, it promotes openness and honesty.
That's my opinion, anyway-do feel free to correct me.
Reply to Daron (:
Perhaps to make it more sound, we can refine the following definition that Daron has set in place as the democracy that we will be discussing in this argument.
According to Daron: "Let us put it simply: democracy, simply put, would be the governmental system in which the power has been given to the people. Hence, effectively a democratic state would cover any state in which the government would be selected by the people."
In my opinion, to effectively cover the scope of democratic states that we should cover, we must take into consideration another key concept exhibited in the practice of democracy: which is namely the fact that important decisions within the nation should also be decided by the people. Naturally, it is impossible for such a policy to be mutually inclusive, but the people should be allowed to voice their opinions and have a say in the making of decisions which are potentially life-changing.
With that, I would like to explore the idea of a "perfect democratic state", in the instance of Switzerland, which is a democratic country that we have been previously discussing. In my opinion, to simply slap a label of "a perfect democratic state" on Switzerland would be without doubt invariably myopic and shallow.
As already previously mentioned, one major problems of decision making by the people would be the issue of "tyranny of the majority": while the opinion of the majority can be represented, it is implausible for the entire population's point-of-view to be represented.
Because of these pockets of factions with resisting ideals, perfect stability in society would hence be impossible, since social coherence would be impossible with discontent within the society.
Quoting an article from the telegraph.co.uk:
Another avenue to explore would also be how other forms of governments can achieve stability in society, and we can even explore solutions by suggesting the most perfect form of government in the quest for utopia.
According to Daron: "Let us put it simply: democracy, simply put, would be the governmental system in which the power has been given to the people. Hence, effectively a democratic state would cover any state in which the government would be selected by the people."
In my opinion, to effectively cover the scope of democratic states that we should cover, we must take into consideration another key concept exhibited in the practice of democracy: which is namely the fact that important decisions within the nation should also be decided by the people. Naturally, it is impossible for such a policy to be mutually inclusive, but the people should be allowed to voice their opinions and have a say in the making of decisions which are potentially life-changing.
With that, I would like to explore the idea of a "perfect democratic state", in the instance of Switzerland, which is a democratic country that we have been previously discussing. In my opinion, to simply slap a label of "a perfect democratic state" on Switzerland would be without doubt invariably myopic and shallow.
As already previously mentioned, one major problems of decision making by the people would be the issue of "tyranny of the majority": while the opinion of the majority can be represented, it is implausible for the entire population's point-of-view to be represented.
Because of these pockets of factions with resisting ideals, perfect stability in society would hence be impossible, since social coherence would be impossible with discontent within the society.
Quoting an article from the telegraph.co.uk:
"The Swiss proudly call their country the world's most direct democracy.
But a week before a general election, the political battle has become all too direct — complete with tear gas, burning barricades and street battles between police and anti-racism campaigners." [Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1566080/Swiss-election-sparks-riots-and-racism.html#continue]
Perhaps we could discuss more about how while democracy in its uncorrupt form can create political, social and economic stability, its pockets of flaws would hinder it into becoming the most form of democracy.Another avenue to explore would also be how other forms of governments can achieve stability in society, and we can even explore solutions by suggesting the most perfect form of government in the quest for utopia.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Response!
Alright, I think Switzerland and the United Kingdom (as brought up by Gregory and Kaitsi respectively) are both excellent examples of effective forms of government which brings about stability in society.
In response to Kaitsi's labelling of Bangladesh's government as military dictatorship, I would once again like to highlight the point that I made about us discussing democracy in its pure, uncorrupted form to be beneficial to society. Hence, with this would rise one question: how do we then decide what defines a democratic state in reality? Do we just label and regard a state to be democratic just because they claim to be so? What definition should we then impose on these states to determine whether they are practicing the "true form of democracy"? And with that, what is the "true form of democracy"?
To make our argument a lot more sound, perhaps we should generalise the scope of democratic states to look at. I believe that in my first post I laid down an assumption we should make whilst discussing democracy, which was "assume that the 'democracy' that has been raised in the aforementioned motion refers to the physical manifestation that we see in many societies today, based on the assumption that the various forms of democratic governments still conform to the original ideology of liberalism and the manifestation in the form of democracy." Hence, with that assumption in place, the issue of what defines the original idea of democracy comes into question.
Let us put it simply: democracy, simply put, would be the governmental system in which the power has been given to the people. Hence, effectively a democratic state would cover any state in which the government would be selected by the people.
The point that I'm trying to put across here is that in opposition to Kaitsi's point-of-view, I believe that Bangladesh is still in itself a democratic state, since (according to wikipedia), "direct elections involving all citizens over the age 18 are held every five years for the unicameral parliament known as Jatia Sangsad." With that in mind, it is obvious that the government of the country are selected by the people. And yes, I would like to agree with Kaitsi's point-of-view, in which he stated that the root causes of instability in Bangladesh would not be democracy in itself, but rather a misrepresentation and ill implementation of an otherwise effective method of governmental system.
With that, I would like to put forth a question regarding Bangladesh one more time: if the people are that dissatisfied with the government, why isn't the government being voted out for a more effective opposition government?
I would also like to draw upon an important point (in my opinion) that we can further work on to discuss the effectiveness of democracy in bringing about stability in society. Kaitsi says that "Generally, democracy is a good idea. Its very basis of 'power to the people' implies stability because the people get their due say in the ideal democratic system. However, its many forms and interpretations often result in corruption of the system." I think that this can be the underlying substantive that we draw upon whilst discussing this issue, since this is mainly the point that (I believe) most of us are drawing upon and trying to conclude at.
Anyway, in my opinion, democracy does create stability in society, and I think that the example that Gregory raised would be an classic and excellent example of showing the sheer effectiveness and plausibility of democracy being implemented in real life in its pure, noble form.
And I can't seem to be able to think of any flaws of Switzerland as of this moment. Any ideas anyone?
In response to Kaitsi's labelling of Bangladesh's government as military dictatorship, I would once again like to highlight the point that I made about us discussing democracy in its pure, uncorrupted form to be beneficial to society. Hence, with this would rise one question: how do we then decide what defines a democratic state in reality? Do we just label and regard a state to be democratic just because they claim to be so? What definition should we then impose on these states to determine whether they are practicing the "true form of democracy"? And with that, what is the "true form of democracy"?
To make our argument a lot more sound, perhaps we should generalise the scope of democratic states to look at. I believe that in my first post I laid down an assumption we should make whilst discussing democracy, which was "assume that the 'democracy' that has been raised in the aforementioned motion refers to the physical manifestation that we see in many societies today, based on the assumption that the various forms of democratic governments still conform to the original ideology of liberalism and the manifestation in the form of democracy." Hence, with that assumption in place, the issue of what defines the original idea of democracy comes into question.
Let us put it simply: democracy, simply put, would be the governmental system in which the power has been given to the people. Hence, effectively a democratic state would cover any state in which the government would be selected by the people.
The point that I'm trying to put across here is that in opposition to Kaitsi's point-of-view, I believe that Bangladesh is still in itself a democratic state, since (according to wikipedia), "direct elections involving all citizens over the age 18 are held every five years for the unicameral parliament known as Jatia Sangsad." With that in mind, it is obvious that the government of the country are selected by the people. And yes, I would like to agree with Kaitsi's point-of-view, in which he stated that the root causes of instability in Bangladesh would not be democracy in itself, but rather a misrepresentation and ill implementation of an otherwise effective method of governmental system.
With that, I would like to put forth a question regarding Bangladesh one more time: if the people are that dissatisfied with the government, why isn't the government being voted out for a more effective opposition government?
I would also like to draw upon an important point (in my opinion) that we can further work on to discuss the effectiveness of democracy in bringing about stability in society. Kaitsi says that "Generally, democracy is a good idea. Its very basis of 'power to the people' implies stability because the people get their due say in the ideal democratic system. However, its many forms and interpretations often result in corruption of the system." I think that this can be the underlying substantive that we draw upon whilst discussing this issue, since this is mainly the point that (I believe) most of us are drawing upon and trying to conclude at.
Anyway, in my opinion, democracy does create stability in society, and I think that the example that Gregory raised would be an classic and excellent example of showing the sheer effectiveness and plausibility of democracy being implemented in real life in its pure, noble form.
And I can't seem to be able to think of any flaws of Switzerland as of this moment. Any ideas anyone?
Hi people, sorry for my late post for this discussion. Well you've basically discussed the case study of Bangladesh, and raised the point that perhaps Democracy doesn't work at times. Well, as what Daron suggested, an example of a successful democratic society would be Switzerland.
In Switzerland, what is practised is what we call, Direct Democracy. Decisions made in the country are all by majority of the people. Divided into many cantons, Switzerland's government has 3 different levels, that of the commune, canton and then federal government. The Swiss have much power to decide on their on laws, provided that they can show the signatures of 50, 000 people to support their proposal. On another note, the Swiss have to vote about 4 times a year to decide on certain issues.
On a more social basis, the people of Switzerland also make the decisions of constructions work, such as building of schools, theatres or hospitals. Only upon the majority of people's votes, that the building may proceed. As you can see, the people have much influence of their living environment, as they could very well sway the decisions of the government.
So as you can see from the above, the people in Switzerland are living in good conditions under democracy as they can choose the way they want to live!
On the other hand, can someone point out a fault with this specific case study?
2nd Counter-Reply to Mush (:<
Hi Mush,
I'm not too sure about this, but it seems as if Bangladesh's problems do not stem from the system of democracy, but rather the flaws in Begum Khaleda Zia's government, or other factors. Is Zia's government truly practicing democracy? Or are they turning democracy into a developing military dictatorship? According to Wikipedia (sorry), "They [the military] are also assisting the interim Government of Bangladesh in a drive against corruption which seems to be mostly targeted against the politicians and opponents. The military has also imposed censorship of the national media and closing down/hampering private TV stations. Illegal detentions and torture to extract confessions have also become rampant." Wikipedia also states that there is a "lack of coordination" between the Election Commission and the Government and political parties, and the World Bank has stated that "among Bangladesh’s most significant obstacles to growth are poor governance and weak public institutions." Perhaps the concept I just described may be overdone, but in this case I feel that a lack of proper coordination and corruption problems serve more towards the overall stability of Bangladesh than the system of democracy itself.
There are some discrepancies between the information you provided and the information provided by Wikipedia. Wikipedia may not be always reliable as a source of information, but it is noteworthy that the website states: "Bomb attacks taking place since 1999 have been blamed on those groups[radical Islamic parties]...The first recorded case of a suicide bomb attack in Bangladesh took place in November 2005." Could you clarify if the bomb attacks in 1999 were indeed carried out in Bangladesh?
Also, responding to Daron's desperate plea for real-life examples of successful democratic states, I cite the United Kingdom, which works on a constitutional monarchy. The U.K. enjoys relative overall stability. Also, they experienced their first terrorist bombing just a few years ago as well, so I don't see how experiencing a bombing is an indicator of the failings of democracy.
Replying to Greg, I believe Switzerland is a model example of the ideal democratic system. Switzerland boasts the second most competitive economy in the world and as a neutral country, enjoys general stability for its people.
Generally, democracy is a good idea. Its very basis of "power to the people" implies stability because the people get their due say in the ideal democratic system. However, its many forms and interpretations often result in corruption of the system. For example, in plain contradiction of one of the principles of democracy, certain South-East Asian countries rig their elections and polling procedures. Mush raised a very valid point earlier in the discussion--if 51% of the citizens agree on an issue but 49% think otherwise, the 51% still counts as the majority even though the difference is not much. While this is possible and the minority's opinion will indeed be undermined, in most cases I do not think that making the minority unhappy would neccessarily cause conflict and unrest. Usually, citizens are for something because it is advantageous to them. Not getting their wish does not neccessarily imply riots and unrest because their loss is not as consequential as life or death.
Sorry for excessively long article.
I'm not too sure about this, but it seems as if Bangladesh's problems do not stem from the system of democracy, but rather the flaws in Begum Khaleda Zia's government, or other factors. Is Zia's government truly practicing democracy? Or are they turning democracy into a developing military dictatorship? According to Wikipedia (sorry), "They [the military] are also assisting the interim Government of Bangladesh in a drive against corruption which seems to be mostly targeted against the politicians and opponents. The military has also imposed censorship of the national media and closing down/hampering private TV stations. Illegal detentions and torture to extract confessions have also become rampant." Wikipedia also states that there is a "lack of coordination" between the Election Commission and the Government and political parties, and the World Bank has stated that "among Bangladesh’s most significant obstacles to growth are poor governance and weak public institutions." Perhaps the concept I just described may be overdone, but in this case I feel that a lack of proper coordination and corruption problems serve more towards the overall stability of Bangladesh than the system of democracy itself.
There are some discrepancies between the information you provided and the information provided by Wikipedia. Wikipedia may not be always reliable as a source of information, but it is noteworthy that the website states: "Bomb attacks taking place since 1999 have been blamed on those groups[radical Islamic parties]...The first recorded case of a suicide bomb attack in Bangladesh took place in November 2005." Could you clarify if the bomb attacks in 1999 were indeed carried out in Bangladesh?
Also, responding to Daron's desperate plea for real-life examples of successful democratic states, I cite the United Kingdom, which works on a constitutional monarchy. The U.K. enjoys relative overall stability. Also, they experienced their first terrorist bombing just a few years ago as well, so I don't see how experiencing a bombing is an indicator of the failings of democracy.
Replying to Greg, I believe Switzerland is a model example of the ideal democratic system. Switzerland boasts the second most competitive economy in the world and as a neutral country, enjoys general stability for its people.
Generally, democracy is a good idea. Its very basis of "power to the people" implies stability because the people get their due say in the ideal democratic system. However, its many forms and interpretations often result in corruption of the system. For example, in plain contradiction of one of the principles of democracy, certain South-East Asian countries rig their elections and polling procedures. Mush raised a very valid point earlier in the discussion--if 51% of the citizens agree on an issue but 49% think otherwise, the 51% still counts as the majority even though the difference is not much. While this is possible and the minority's opinion will indeed be undermined, in most cases I do not think that making the minority unhappy would neccessarily cause conflict and unrest. Usually, citizens are for something because it is advantageous to them. Not getting their wish does not neccessarily imply riots and unrest because their loss is not as consequential as life or death.
Sorry for excessively long article.
Counter-reply to Mush (:
Alright, definitely I'd acknowledge that there are plenty of cases around the world in which implementations of democratic governments (or so they claim to be) do not appear to have any positive or beneficial effect on society, and neither does the government seem to bring any remote form of stability on society.
I think Mush raised an excellent example of a form of what I deem to be "failed democracy", which is the state of Bangladesh. What I mean by this term would be that because the theoretical effects of democracy are good in general, when implemented in reality, other factors such as corruption of government would result in a breakdown in the system.
I would like to clarify with Mush on some points that he raised about Bangladesh. Firstly, how often are elections run in Bangladesh? Isn't there any opposition party that might arise to address the woes of the Bangladeshi citizens? In addition to that, is there a suppression of freedom of expression in Bangladesh? Should the citizens be unhappy about their current state of affairs, are there not any form of protests or strikes against particularly objectionable governmental policies perhaps?
Perhaps we should discuss a real-life example of a succesful democratic state? Just a suggestion. (:
I think Mush raised an excellent example of a form of what I deem to be "failed democracy", which is the state of Bangladesh. What I mean by this term would be that because the theoretical effects of democracy are good in general, when implemented in reality, other factors such as corruption of government would result in a breakdown in the system.
I would like to clarify with Mush on some points that he raised about Bangladesh. Firstly, how often are elections run in Bangladesh? Isn't there any opposition party that might arise to address the woes of the Bangladeshi citizens? In addition to that, is there a suppression of freedom of expression in Bangladesh? Should the citizens be unhappy about their current state of affairs, are there not any form of protests or strikes against particularly objectionable governmental policies perhaps?
Perhaps we should discuss a real-life example of a succesful democratic state? Just a suggestion. (:
Counter-point to Daron's reply
Hey Daron,
To bring our discussion into the context of the real world, I would like to use Bangladesh as an example.
Bangladesh is a democratic country and the government is elected democratically. However, despite practicing democracy, it does not enjoy social, political or even economic stability. During Begum Khaleda Zia's second term as Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 2001-2006, the country's social and economic stability deteriorated rapidly. Not only did the country experience its first terrorist bombings in 2005, the value of Taka, the monetary unit of Bangladesh, went down significantly as compared to the US Dollar, so much so that by the end of Begum Zia's reign, 1 US Dollar was equivalent to 75 Taka, whereas in 1999, it was equivalent to only 50 Taka. Furthermore, Begum Zia's government failed to create more jobs for the significant part of the population that was jobless. This led to a rising number of people living below the poverty line, and also hindered the economy from progressing, since many people who were capable of contributing to the country's economy were not being able to do so.
Also, the social stability of the country was affected by the many strikes and curfews that were imposed throughout Begum Zia's reign. These strikes and curfews meant that the entire country came to a standstill for a day. This stopped children from going to school and adults from going to work, once again affecting the already suffering economy. These also disrupted the daily lives of civilian and damages were also made to private properties and many innocent lives were also lost in the process of these strikes and curfews.
And, the gap between the lower and upper classes became wider and wider with each passing year of Begum Zia's reign, as her government struggled to keep the inflation rate under control so that the people of Bangladesh could continue to afford their basic necessities. This was especially important since a majority of the population in Bangladesh earns less than US$ 3.00 a day. Thus with the rising inflation, the poor got poorer, while the rich got richer.
So you see Daron, despite practicing democracy, Bangladesh isn't really enjoying stability in any of the aspects that we've been focusing at.
To bring our discussion into the context of the real world, I would like to use Bangladesh as an example.
Bangladesh is a democratic country and the government is elected democratically. However, despite practicing democracy, it does not enjoy social, political or even economic stability. During Begum Khaleda Zia's second term as Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 2001-2006, the country's social and economic stability deteriorated rapidly. Not only did the country experience its first terrorist bombings in 2005, the value of Taka, the monetary unit of Bangladesh, went down significantly as compared to the US Dollar, so much so that by the end of Begum Zia's reign, 1 US Dollar was equivalent to 75 Taka, whereas in 1999, it was equivalent to only 50 Taka. Furthermore, Begum Zia's government failed to create more jobs for the significant part of the population that was jobless. This led to a rising number of people living below the poverty line, and also hindered the economy from progressing, since many people who were capable of contributing to the country's economy were not being able to do so.
Also, the social stability of the country was affected by the many strikes and curfews that were imposed throughout Begum Zia's reign. These strikes and curfews meant that the entire country came to a standstill for a day. This stopped children from going to school and adults from going to work, once again affecting the already suffering economy. These also disrupted the daily lives of civilian and damages were also made to private properties and many innocent lives were also lost in the process of these strikes and curfews.
And, the gap between the lower and upper classes became wider and wider with each passing year of Begum Zia's reign, as her government struggled to keep the inflation rate under control so that the people of Bangladesh could continue to afford their basic necessities. This was especially important since a majority of the population in Bangladesh earns less than US$ 3.00 a day. Thus with the rising inflation, the poor got poorer, while the rich got richer.
So you see Daron, despite practicing democracy, Bangladesh isn't really enjoying stability in any of the aspects that we've been focusing at.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Another Reply!
Alright, definitely, I'd have to acknowledge Mush's point that one of the main assumptions in democracy would be that the majority being represented would definitely be the best way to counter any form of dissent in society, hence a form of tyranny of the majority is demonstrated in this context.
However, in response to that, I'd like to raise the point that one of the key features of a truly democratic government would be the acceptance of freedom of expression. Hence, whenever the people feel unfairly treated against and feel strongly against a particular issue, they have the option to voice our their opinions and stands on the issue for the government to address their issues. Hence, while the majority's opinion would be represented in the running of the state, to say that the minority's views are not respected at all would be a flaw in itself.
When the people voice out their opinions, it'd be inevitable that there would be a form of social destabilisation taking into consideration that the mode in which the minority would express their discontent would be mainly public demonstrations, strikes or more subtle means such as petitions or protests. Hence, the point that I am trying to bring across here would be that while there would be some social destabilisation (bringing about social instability and possibly political instability should the people's violent protests result in a sudden dethronement attempt) amongst the people, these destabilisation are but minor and temporary, and if we consider it in the long run, the results of this free expression in a democratic state would definitely be beneficial, since these temporary social destabilisations would eventually settle to an equilibrium causing social, economic and political stability.
Hence, in this argument, I would like to present this point that a specific aspect of democracy (namely freedom of expression) would contribute greatly to creating social, political and economic stability in society, hence addressing Mush's concern over the minority not being represented.
However, just to move this discussion a little along, I'll like to mention that our arguments thus far has been focussed a little too much on the theoretical aspect of democracy in which we assume the form of democracy to be pure and uncorrupted, which is clearly not the case in modern society today. Maybe we should start drawing examples from real-life to support how while democracy in its most noble form clearly does result in stability, it clearly does not manifest itself effectively in real life. Hence, perhaps we might want to tweak the hypothesis presented to us a little to better address the scope of the problem.
Alright, discuss discuss!
However, in response to that, I'd like to raise the point that one of the key features of a truly democratic government would be the acceptance of freedom of expression. Hence, whenever the people feel unfairly treated against and feel strongly against a particular issue, they have the option to voice our their opinions and stands on the issue for the government to address their issues. Hence, while the majority's opinion would be represented in the running of the state, to say that the minority's views are not respected at all would be a flaw in itself.
When the people voice out their opinions, it'd be inevitable that there would be a form of social destabilisation taking into consideration that the mode in which the minority would express their discontent would be mainly public demonstrations, strikes or more subtle means such as petitions or protests. Hence, the point that I am trying to bring across here would be that while there would be some social destabilisation (bringing about social instability and possibly political instability should the people's violent protests result in a sudden dethronement attempt) amongst the people, these destabilisation are but minor and temporary, and if we consider it in the long run, the results of this free expression in a democratic state would definitely be beneficial, since these temporary social destabilisations would eventually settle to an equilibrium causing social, economic and political stability.
Hence, in this argument, I would like to present this point that a specific aspect of democracy (namely freedom of expression) would contribute greatly to creating social, political and economic stability in society, hence addressing Mush's concern over the minority not being represented.
However, just to move this discussion a little along, I'll like to mention that our arguments thus far has been focussed a little too much on the theoretical aspect of democracy in which we assume the form of democracy to be pure and uncorrupted, which is clearly not the case in modern society today. Maybe we should start drawing examples from real-life to support how while democracy in its most noble form clearly does result in stability, it clearly does not manifest itself effectively in real life. Hence, perhaps we might want to tweak the hypothesis presented to us a little to better address the scope of the problem.
Alright, discuss discuss!
Counter-point to Daron's Introduction
Hey Daron,
I'm afraid you have failed to highlight the limitations of a democratic system of governance. You are assuming that simply because the majority of your population is content with the government, your whole population is content too.
You have agreed in your last paragraph that democracy does not exist in its pure, uncorrupted form. Thus there are bound to be problems and limitations to the democratic form of government in the real world.
One of the major problems I can think of is this. There might arise a case where 51% of your population is for something while 49% is against it. Then according to a democratic form of government, the decision would favour the 51% of the population. However, this does not imply that the entire population is content with the decision. 49% of the population is quite a big number, even though they might be the minority in this case. Thus, this sizeable chunk of your population would be unhappy with the decision made, and it could disrupt the social, economic and even the political stability of your country.
Furthermore, in a democratic system of governance, the decisions will tend to favour the majority group, leading the minority group to be undermined all the time. How are you going to prevent this from happening? And if this process continues over a perios of time, the minority group is going to be discontent, since they will be at a disadvantage as compared to the majority group, won't they?
That's all I can think up of right now. Do try and answer back to my points if possible. (=
I'm afraid you have failed to highlight the limitations of a democratic system of governance. You are assuming that simply because the majority of your population is content with the government, your whole population is content too.
You have agreed in your last paragraph that democracy does not exist in its pure, uncorrupted form. Thus there are bound to be problems and limitations to the democratic form of government in the real world.
One of the major problems I can think of is this. There might arise a case where 51% of your population is for something while 49% is against it. Then according to a democratic form of government, the decision would favour the 51% of the population. However, this does not imply that the entire population is content with the decision. 49% of the population is quite a big number, even though they might be the minority in this case. Thus, this sizeable chunk of your population would be unhappy with the decision made, and it could disrupt the social, economic and even the political stability of your country.
Furthermore, in a democratic system of governance, the decisions will tend to favour the majority group, leading the minority group to be undermined all the time. How are you going to prevent this from happening? And if this process continues over a perios of time, the minority group is going to be discontent, since they will be at a disadvantage as compared to the majority group, won't they?
That's all I can think up of right now. Do try and answer back to my points if possible. (=
Monday, May 12, 2008
Introduction
Alright, since I've set up the blog for our discussion I might as well start the discussion too.
"Democracy creates stability in a society."
Basically, there are several important aspects to this argument. Firstly, let us assume that the "democracy" that has been raised in the aforementioned motion refers to the physical manifestation that we see in many societies today, based on the assumption that the various forms of democratic governments still conform to the original ideology of liberalism and the manifestation in the form of democracy.
Secondly, stability in society would cover many facades, and I think that a good way in which we can tackle this would be to look at it from the three main facades, namely political, economic and social stability, and by stability let us assume that it means coherence and a lack of major strife or conflict, resulting in a firm establishment and security in society.
With these definitions in place, we're all ready to discuss about the topic, no? (: Of course, my definitions are definitely objectionable so please do review them.
Alright, in my opinion, democracy does create social, political and economic coherence. Firstly, democracy is, simply put, a system of rule derived from the people. In other words, in a democratic state, the people, the commoners have a say in the government, and effectively how the people want to be ruled and the direction in which they want their society to take would be decided by the people themselves, not by any higher authority.
Hence, considering that democracy is an extremely people-oriented form of government, the needs and the wants of the people would be appeased, and this, in place, would inexplicably lead to a social stability (since the needs and the wants of the people are addressed, hence giving them no reason to be discontent) and political coherence (since the government is decided by the people, and should there be discontent with the government, the people can always vote the government out during elections, hence a lack of political dissent.) With these social and political securities, investors would hence also be attracted to invest in the country, hence creating a relative form of economic stability too.
Of course, these are all based on the assumptions that democracy would remain in its pure, uncorrupted, noble form, which is in itself a hypothesis contrary to fact. I'll leave you guys to argue this out, lest I sound like I'm giving a monologue to myself here. (:
Discuss discuss! We only have till Thursday for this discussion, so let's make it a good one.
"Democracy creates stability in a society."
Basically, there are several important aspects to this argument. Firstly, let us assume that the "democracy" that has been raised in the aforementioned motion refers to the physical manifestation that we see in many societies today, based on the assumption that the various forms of democratic governments still conform to the original ideology of liberalism and the manifestation in the form of democracy.
Secondly, stability in society would cover many facades, and I think that a good way in which we can tackle this would be to look at it from the three main facades, namely political, economic and social stability, and by stability let us assume that it means coherence and a lack of major strife or conflict, resulting in a firm establishment and security in society.
With these definitions in place, we're all ready to discuss about the topic, no? (: Of course, my definitions are definitely objectionable so please do review them.
Alright, in my opinion, democracy does create social, political and economic coherence. Firstly, democracy is, simply put, a system of rule derived from the people. In other words, in a democratic state, the people, the commoners have a say in the government, and effectively how the people want to be ruled and the direction in which they want their society to take would be decided by the people themselves, not by any higher authority.
Hence, considering that democracy is an extremely people-oriented form of government, the needs and the wants of the people would be appeased, and this, in place, would inexplicably lead to a social stability (since the needs and the wants of the people are addressed, hence giving them no reason to be discontent) and political coherence (since the government is decided by the people, and should there be discontent with the government, the people can always vote the government out during elections, hence a lack of political dissent.) With these social and political securities, investors would hence also be attracted to invest in the country, hence creating a relative form of economic stability too.
Of course, these are all based on the assumptions that democracy would remain in its pure, uncorrupted, noble form, which is in itself a hypothesis contrary to fact. I'll leave you guys to argue this out, lest I sound like I'm giving a monologue to myself here. (:
Discuss discuss! We only have till Thursday for this discussion, so let's make it a good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)