Argumentative Response Essay - Democracy Creates Stability in a Society

Listen to George Bush speak about establishing democracies in replacement of flawed oppressive regimes around the world and one would think that democracy is one great system of governance on earth that can guarantee peace, stability, and even prosperity. “You can't put democracy and freedom back into a box,” he once proclaimed, reinforcing the idea that democracy is a fundamental need in the world today.

However, does democracy really create stability? Without doubt, the answer will certainly not be as straightforward as President Bush puts it. Nevertheless, it is my view that democracy creates stability to a large extent.

Before examining the question, it is first important to define stability due to its different possible interpretations. In my opinion, a stable society is one where life proceeds as per normal and is not subjected to major disruptions. As such, a political stable society is one where the government is recognized by all citizens and unlikely to be destabilized by unconstitutional means; a socially stable society is one where there is minimal social unrest and discord amongst the people. Economic stability would not be discussed as economics is a complicated affair which is difficult to predict.

The main reason why democracy can create stability is due to the way this system works. In democracy, all the citizens have the liberty to vote for representatives whom they belief can best stand up for their interests and govern the country, and hence the government in power will inevitably be supported by a majority of the people, minimizing unhappiness as at least a majority of the people would have supported the government and its ideals. Of course, there might be some people who object but as the saying goes, it is impossible to please everyone. If the government loses the popular support, the people understand that they can constitutionally replace it in the next election, as seen from how voters in U.S handed control of the Lower House to the Democrats in the 2006 elections.

I believe that this leads to social stability as the government would be voted in based on merit according the judgement of the people, and would likely do a good job governing the country and ensuring the people's well-being. Moreover, the government would often do its best to woo opposition voters by proving its ability to lead the country to prosperity, or even by handing out carrots to appease them, as seen from how the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) Government in Singapore attempted to win votes by promising to place residents in the opposition controlled constituencies on the Lift Upgrading Scheme in 2006. This ensures that the people are happy with the leadership and there will be minimal unrest.

Democracy also leads to political stability as the people understand and abide by the procedures of elections, allowing whoever has the most support to govern in a constitutional manner, specifically through elections, removing the need for unconstitutional means of overthrowing the government to express their dissatisfaction. As such, this government can always focus on governing the country, instead of spending time to quell insurgencies or riots.

However, since the time of Plato, scholars and laymen alike have labelled democracy as a “tyranny of the majority”, claiming that the rights of the minorities might not be respected by the government and people, who might not make rational decisions especially on issues that concern the minority due to prejudices. This is contrary to one of the key assumptions of democracy, which is that people can make rational decisions and decide what is best for the country. As such, this fault would certainly cause unhappiness amongst the groups which are discriminated against, leading to social and possibly political instability.

This can be seen from the case study of Sri Lanka, where the Sri Lanka Freedom Party won a landslide election in 1956, appealing to majority Sinhalese people with their promises of privileges for them. Subsequently, they and successive governments neglected the Tamils, implementing biased policies, but stayed in power due to support from the Sinhalese who formed the overwhelming majority. This led to resentment amongst the Tamils, culminating in the formation of numerous Tamil resistance groups such as the Tamil Tigers, creating much social and political instability with their acts of defiance, which included bombings and killings of soldiers.

Nevertheless, I believe that in modern times, many democracies have realized that a society cannot prosper if certain groups of people are denied of their rights. This realization can be seen from USINFO’s present stand that “All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.”

It is true that some democracies still have not adopted this approach but a glance at the many other democracies that have would prove its effectiveness at creating political and social stability. In the United States where there were protests, and even racial riots when the African-Americans were still being discriminated, these have now become a thing of the past and citizens now go about their daily work without major disruptions due to internal factors.

Evidently, modern democracy encompasses protecting the basic rights of all people, and the many democracies that have already adopted this policy are now enjoying social and political stability. In time to come, it is also likely that the other countries would also realize this need, and adopt similar policies.

In conclusion, although democracy may not be a perfect solution in ensuring stability, as seen from how some democracies still do not account for the basic human rights of certain groups especially the minority groups, leading to problems such as “tyranny of the majority” and causing unhappiness in the society, it is thus far the best solution mankind has come up with. Mr. Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of Great Britain himself said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” Still, most other democracies now have the foresight to protect minority rights, minimizing unhappiness and disquiet amongst the population. This coupled with the workings of a democratic system, which is that the government is elected by the people, ensures the long term political and social stability of the country to a large extent.