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 !!!