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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)