With regard to Li Yu’s query, I never said that democracy was “a curse for
I guess to make myself clearer I should just define what I mean by stability and democracy. As for stability, as Jeremy has mentioned before, there is social, political and economic stability. For me throughout this entire ‘dialogue’ I have taken stability as social stability while there is no real definition for democracy. From wikipedia alone I can count, 6, 7, 8… and many more types of democracy.
Moving on the topic of democracy creating stability within a country, I agree as well along with the rest of you. By investing the power in the people, the chance that they will revolt or go on strikes is much lesser than when the power is invested solely in the government. However, along with democracy will also come a small minority of people who are not content with the direction the country is developing. It is hard to expect what they might do when facing such a problem. If the country is lucky the minority will not be violent and will merely voice out its opinion but as we can see all over the world many organizations representing minorities often resort to violent means to their own ends. By saying this however I must acknowledge the fact that such a thing as consensus democracy exists, that is, a kind of democracy that requires various degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. Basically consensus democracy aims to protect the minority rights from majority rule. I personally think that there is no form of government that can possibly fulfill the wishes of every single person in their country and therefore total stability cannot be achieved. However, democracy does, to a large extent bring countries to stability as it satisfies majority of the people in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment