This should be the last post

sorry guys, didnt know that i ahve to accept invitationXD. i hope this is not too late although it most probably will be. anyway, this is to show that i, too, have thought about this.

I agree to Joel's point that a one-party governament would bring hell and chaos to a country should it ever be corrupted. Also, a democratic state when ruled properly would also bring glory and stability to a country.

However, does democracy really means stability to a country? The answer is definitely no. Democracy may bring stability--it is not stability itself. Why do i say so? This is because in a true blue democratic state, multiple parties are given the power over the same opportunites, that is, be given the power they were voted by the public. Singapore currently has only the basic model for this concept--opposition takes a mere fraction of the total parliament seating, their views and power is severely limited.

Democracy may prevent issues like corruptions or disputes within the party from affecting the country to a large extent. However, just like how the splitting of power creates balance, it also causes certain other issues to break out.

Take Taiwan as an example, its democratic government structure allow the people to remove the current government as soon as negative things are discovered. This may allow the government to always function at its prime state. However, should the parties have disputes over one another, the seperate barracks of supporters could easily escalate into major conflicts.

Therefore, although the characteristic of democracy ,which includes the seperation of power concentration prevents major porblems that arise when a government is deemed to be imcompetent,or have internal dispute allows a democratic state to mitigate this effect to the maximum extent, the conflicts between powergroups or parties will also create indisputable conflicts. Therefore democracy does not necessarily mean stability to a country.