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?