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?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
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)