Oops I just realized I kind of diverged from the given topic. Well, about this idea of stability, we can basically classify it into economic, political and social stability. In peoples' opinion of Singapore as a socialist democracy, the economic strength of Singapore is rather secured through governmental influence, whilst resulting in social stability through satisfaction of needs in a relatively affluent society. In Singapore's case, we are stable politically, with the ruling party taking authority over many matters, and not having changed for the past few decades, are not radically different and thus do not upset the balance. As such, I feel the type of "democracy" Singapore is practicing, whatever critics deem it as, contribute immensely to the stability of our society, which is no doubt one of the government's biggest priorities. So, back to the question at hand - Does Democracy bring stability to a country? The underlying basis for that question is the definition of democracy we classify. In my opinion, Democracy has no "fixed or proper form", and even direct democracy, though seemingly closer to the ideal, is not a perfect system. However, as can be seen from the example of Singapore, a mixture of "socialist democracy" and almost "authoritarian" can merge to result in stability in the different aspects of life.

Jeremy