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!