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.