Conclusion

To conclude, democracy consists of three defining characteristics that we have attempted to discuss on this blog: freedom of expression, granting political power to its ordinary citizens, and having a law to govern the nation. From our little discussion, we can clearly see that these three criteria that define a democracy can help a democratic nation achieve stability, or instability.

I believe (and i think our whole group does too) this largely depends on the circumstances that the citizens create. All three characteristics are affected solely by the actions of the people. If the citizens decide to be irresponsible (for example, they decide to go against the law, or they make rash decisions during voting), they will just do their nation harm. An example will be Taiwan. Freedom of expression is granted in this country, but the nation does not seem to be in stability at all. I feel this is because some of its people abuse the right to free speech, resulting in many conflicts. Furthermore, as Andy earlier mentioned, if the whole nation decided to vote for the wrong stuff (his example given was racism), there will be instability too. The citizens will have abused their right to vote.

On the contrary, if everyone is cooperative and makes wise decisions, stability can easily be achieved within the country.

We can see from our discussions that in a democracy, the common citizens have a large influence their country. They decide their government and various policies. It is something like "strength in numbers".

Therefore, to conclude, I feel that stability can only be achieved in a democracy if its people want to make it happen. They are most important factor in the moulding of a democratic country.

To achieve this, I think that educating the public will be rather effective in getting the citizens to be responsible when using the rights that a democracy allows them to have. They will then be able to make well-informed decisions during voting, possibly resulting in more stability for the country as a capable government is elected. As Aloysius has mentioned, not everyone will follow the law. Education may help to change that.

I think that effectively sums up our long discussion about democracy and stability.

Thanks guys for the insightful discussion!

Weakness of the law

While I agree that the law is a moral compass for people to follow, I think that it is only effective when people follow it. Although it is true that most people would follow the law to avoid running into trouble, there will also be a few with divergent agendas who prefer to do things their own way and use their rights as an excuse to exert a negative influence on the society. For example, an extremist political group might use democracy and freedom of speech to spread brazen messages which fulfill their political agendas, disregarding the law and destabilizing society in the process. The one thing law cannot ensure is that people will follow it; it cannot create stability when people disregard it. Since it is not guaranteed that everyone will follow the law, and that it takes just a few people to create instability in a society, it is inaccurate to think that the law will maintain stability as the assumption that people will follow the law does not always hold true.

How does the presence of a law in democracy confer stability on the society?

Law as defined by the Briticanna Encyclopedia, is the discipline and profession concerned with the customs, practices, and rules of conduct of community that are recognized as binding by the community. Our group has identified this as one of the three distinctive characteristics of democracy because this is one of the main reasons why democracy is so successful. It is somewhat a moral consensus that both the general community and the leaders must look up to and respect closely. This means that even the leaders themselves, if found guilty for any crime governed under law, will be duly dealt with the punishment as stated in the law. Our group feels that this means the leaders are of an equal moral standing as the general community and have to abide to the same set of rules. In a way, the law is like a moral compass for the society. Compare and contrast this to the time when Hitler reigned in Germany and chaos shrouded the country. In this authoritarian case, there was no law to speak of whatsoever because Hitler was the law. He was him who decided that Jews polluted the country, with no logical basis, and thus ordered for their immediate extermination. Therefore, this meant that Jews were unfairly discriminated against and they had to live their lives in constant fear and trepidation. Moving on to the boundary of extremity, we look at Singapore of the present. Experts often marvel at the way Singapore has grown from a dusty fishing town to a cosmopolitian South-Eastern hub. In my opinion, law plays a vital role in this development. Singapore citizens know what actions will result in what consequences, and thus to avoid the neccesary jurisdiction, they ensure that they play their part as socially responsible citizens who live up to Singapore's reputation as one of the world's countries with low crime rates. To sum up, I shall identify the link more explicitly. With the presence of law, citizens have a moral compass to stringently adhere to. Therefore, to escape the jurisdiction and play their part as responsible citizens, they do not committ crimes and there would thus be a stable social and economical scene.
(P.S Stability is ensured in all aspects because the law is ALL- ENCOMPASSING)

Moving On..(and opposing Aloy's argument)

Aloysius mentioned about equal distribution of political power to the people being able to create social stability for the people due to the reduction of aggression for political power. Equal distribution of power to the people means giving them the right to vote, participate in referendums etc. This can act as a reminder to the government officials of the possibility of them being voted out of office. Thus, the officials will try to improve themselves to better serve the population, which of course would benefit the well-being of the citizens. This will be another plus point of how democracy can "help" the citizens, allowing them to live in a socially stable society.
However, there are some other points to consider. We seem to be assuming that human nature is good. What if the people vote for ridiculous stuff? Like promoting racism. This will result in massive instability to the society, socially and economically.
Also, like what Aloy mentioned earlier, if the citizens are not well-informed of their choices, their votes may be mis-cast. This will have a direct impact on what the society will turn out to be - socially instable.
I feel that it all depends on what kind of citizens there are in the society- in terms of education and moral levels.

Democracy's impact on stability in a society - English commentary

(This English commentary is not part of the ongoing Social Studies discussion on democracy and should be read separately)

Democracy is a political ideology with its own advantages and disadvantages. I feel that democracy can create stability in a society, but only if voters are provided the necessary information to make the right choice. Citizens must also be rational enough not to misuse their rights and create instability in society. The stability discussed in this commentary refers to economic and social stability, essential issues directly affecting people in a society.

Democracy can create economic stability in modern times because foreign investors are assured by the fact that the country will always elect a capable government to represent the people and run the nation. Democracy restricts the amount of power held by the political elite and ensures that the economic interests of the nation are protected. This will encourage foreign investment as investors will have more faith in the economy of the nation. Investment will boost the economy, in turn encouraging more investment in the strengthened economy, creating a cycle of foreign investment which maintains the economic stability of a country.

Democracy can create social stability in a society because it recognizes the rights of every individual and allows freedom of expression for the people, media and political parties. There is no reason for the people to resort to violence because their rights are not suppressed; they can always resolve their differences openly and exert an influence through peaceful methods like voting. As long as the rights of the people are respected, the risks of conflict between the people and the government will be kept to a minimum. Thus, social stability will be maintained.

Singapore is a prominent example of how democracy can result in social and economic stability. Singapore’s constitution grants political power to her people through the establishment of voting systems and prevents issues like corruption by making the government accountable to her people. This will protect the national interests of Singapore and create a stable economy where growth of the nation is regarded as the top priority. The rights of Singaporeans are acknowledged and they are allowed considerable freedom of expression as long as it is used responsibly, ensuring that social stability is not threatened by struggles for human rights. Singaporeans are also familiar with the idea of working with the government instead of against it, minimizing the threat of internal conflict within Singapore.

However, democracy functions under the assumption that voters will make the right decision and elect an efficient government to represent them. This is not always true as freedom of expression for all means that voters might receive the wrong information and elect a government which does not protect their interests. When this happens, there will be displeasure over the inefficiency of the government and the subsequent unrest will destabilize society both economically and socially, as both citizens and foreign investors will lose faith in the government.

Also, the idea of rights and freedom of expression is a double-edged sword; while it can reduce conflict and create stability in a society, it can also increase conflict if contrasting opinions are not managed well. Allowing the media and various political parties unlimited freedom will undoubtedly generate different viewpoints on how the country should be run; this will have an adverse impact on the stability of society if people are split into different political camps and cannot reach a consensus regarding the running of the country. Also, the majority might take advantage of their numerical superiority to push for policies which protect their interests and disregard those of the minority, creating conflict within the majority and the minority.

In conclusion, I feel that democracy can create stability in a society but only if citizens are able to make informed decisions and use their rights responsibly. This means that democracy’s impact on stability depends largely on the circumstances in which it is found and must be considered independently in different countries.

Democracy's second link with stability

I think that the reason why freedom of expression can result in both stability and instability lies in the circumstances a nation finds itself it. This also applies to other cases where democracy can be found to lead to stability in one case, but leads to instability in a different setting. To analyze the impact democracy has on the stability of a society, we must also examine its other characteristics. A second characteristic of democracy is that political power is distributed to the people through methods like voting and referendums. This ensures that power is not controlled in the hands of a few (like in a dictatorship) but is spread out. This confers social stability to a society as people, by virtue of their citizenry, can exert an influence through peaceful means like voting and protect their own interests at the same time, ensuring that no one is oppressed by the political elite. They have no reason to resort to violence as they can always exert their influence through other recognised methods, and do not have to gain political power through aggression. This only holds true under the assumption that people are able to make an informed vote, as making a wrong choice might mean that people's interests are not looked after by their representatives in the end, leading to unrest and social instability within a society.

Continuing the discussion -- opposing Sher Yin's viewpoint

Democracy seems to be able to create stability in a nation because it allows freedom of expression of its people. However, the flipside is also true.

While freedom of speech seems important to a nation, it can also produce several adverse side-effects. Firstly, freedom of speech provides a wide spectrum of viewpoints from the nation's people. Some of these remarks made by the citizens may offend other parties in the process. Take for example young and democratic Singapore in the 1960s. Everyone was allowed to express their own viewpoints. However, being humans, there was certainly disagreements. Thus, because of free speech, riots broke out in Singapore as different people set out to settle their own differences. This clearly shows that freedom of speech may not be that useful in achieving social stability after all; disagreements will be common, and these may lead to more severe consequences such as riots.

Therefore, can democracy really achieve stability if it can spark conflict due to free speech?

Continuing with the discussion

HI!!!! With a logical flow in mind, I shall continue with examining the links between the characteristics of democracy and stability/ instability. Evidently, the scope for democracy's potential impacts are expansive, therefore I shall narrow the scope down to economic and social impacts brought by democracy. I shall concentrate on the first point on allowing freedom of expression from various parties like the media, government, and the general body of citizens. This is in a way socially effective because there is in a way respecting human rights and the freedom of speech. Look at the outroar China created when her government effectively stamped out Tibet's connection with the outside world and used her immense influence to destroy any possibility of oppression or expression of views. This merely signals the increasing importance of respecting human rights and it would be globally correct to allow freedom of speech. In my opinion, allowing humans to speak up is a plus-point for both the government and the rest of the community( media, activist groups, citizens). On the community's side, the freedom of speech equates to being able to express one's thoughts, emotions and views and rationally, who would want to be told to "SHUT UP!" I recall that in authoritarian rule, the government restricted media to one sole company and controlled everything released to the public. This is not the case in democracy, as limitless broadcasting corporations are allowed with a wide spectrum of viewpoints. This would certainly increase the media appeal of the country and more foreign investors would flock to the country due to the increase in awareness and the economic viability promised. However, I personally feel that the whole crux of this argument is the link. Allowing citizens and groups to speak up would definitely reduce the possibility of conflicts, but deep inside, it creates stability. The government is exposed to a wide range of viewpoints from those supporting her policies to those not. Stability is maintained because words are used here, when the government proves the counter-perspectives wrong verbally. This can be contrasted with what happened in post-war Japan, when the military was buying its influence into the people's hearts. Being authoritarian, they killed anyone who went against them and this kind of bloody conflicts would not occur in democracy; by virtue of the fact that democracy involves PEACEFUL EXCHANGE OF OPINIONS !!!

Hello everyone!

To begin with, we should define the criterias of democracy. Theoretically, democracy allows freedom of expression from various parties like the media, government, and the general body of citizens. It also involves equal distribution of political involvement to all citizens, ensuring that everyone have equal rights to influence the government's decision-makings. A democracy has a law formed by the consensus of the government and the citizens, to govern the whole state.

SS discussion on democracy begins

I shall begin this discussion by establishing the flow of this discussion. To determine if democracy creates stability in a society, we must first discover its defining characteristics. Next, we must find the influences these characteristics have on the stability of a society. At this point in time, we must also state explicitly which aspects of stability we are going to discuss. Finally, we will arrive at a conclusion as to whether democracy creates stability in a society.

discussion on democracy

There will be a discussion on democracy involving four people: Sher Yin, Andy, John and I (Aloysius). The posts for the discussion will be published soon. My commentary for English will be published separately.