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.