Friday, May 30, 2008
English Blog Post 2 (i.e. Mrs Nathan, please read this!!)
Article
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/demo.htm
In relation with Social Studies assignment: Democracy creates stability in a society. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
Synopsis
How can Democracy be bad for you?
The term "Democracy" is often used as an ideal which promises to bring peace, prosperity and happiness to all. There are 3 types of democracy. [1] Representative/Indirect democracy whereby a representative of the people is voted into government by the people, acting on the people behalf. This is practiced in many Western countries such as Britain. [2] Direct democracy is whereby the people exercise their power directly. This means being able to speak at parliamentary meetings. A referendum is a good example. [3] Consensual democracy is whereby everyone sits down and discuss till a conclusion by consent is reached. This form is impractical for it is unlikely that a whole country’s population would be able to have a common view on an issue.
Limited democracy offers the population to be able to vote within a defined constitution. Yet democracy entails freedom of speech. As such, anything the majority wants goes, even if that includes racism and war. The author expresses support for a democracy limited by the principle of individual liberty and criticize unlimited democracies.
The article also highlights the issue of the tyranny of majority. Simply put, if out of a 100 people, 99 vote to kill the 1 man, it is democratic and the man is thus killed. It doesn't matter if the tyranny is done by the majority to the minority or by a dictatorship to millions, it is still tyranny.
Personal commentary
Agnes Repplier said “Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements.” I agree that democracy can be bad for us.
Democracy can be good for us. It evenly distributes power to the people, not only the elites, thus, attempting to prevent a government with its own agenda. As such, it prevents an abuse of power through a series of checks and balances, e.g. a judiciary system independent of government, an opposing party.
One could conclude that democracy is good, as it promotes equality of the people and a government “for the people, by the people”. The government is made up of representatives from the people and regular free elections with more than one party are held.
A simple example is the election of my class CEC in Sec 1 juxtaposed against Sec 2. In Sec 1, the CEC was autocratically selected. And unfortunately, the class begged to differ and they were, rather harshly, quite ineffective. In Sec 2, it was a ‘democratic’ voting. The logic is simple: when the people are happy, things can thus go on smoothly.
Yet, democracy is not all that hunky-dory.
Firstly, true democracy is impossible. The tyranny of majority serves as the paradoxical situation where democracy fails. To represent either the minority or majority, one would have to be casted aside. Thus, democracy is merely but a continuum, a to-what-degree thing. Therefore, we question, is it truly representative?
Next, there is always a flawed majority. Hitler’s rise to power in Germany was under the provisions of a democratic system, where the majority Germans backed Hitler up with the power of the people to persecute the Jews. In addition, in Germany, majority supported the massacre. In the world, a even larger majority opposed it. Hence, if we really want to talk about majority’s choice, which do we take? The Germans or the world? Both are majorities after all. Hence, such conflicts are irresolvable this way, much like the problem of Utilitarianism.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? The system of checks and balances may seem workable but who is to say corruption cannot weaken it? Monetary gains are a powerful motivator of Man. In addition, political boundaries could be easily redrawn by the ruling party to favor themselves in the next elections.
Lastly, and perhaps the most explicit point, democracy could harm the minority. Look at the conflict of the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. The majority’s interests were place first and thus, the minority literally sacrificed in the genocide.
In conclusion, democracy is a powerful political system. It is a double edged sword; wielded correctly, it proves to be for the betterment of society. In a democracy, I feel boundaries would be set as to what constitutes too far. There is really no hard and fast way of defining such a criterion and I suppose it, as clichéd as it is, it is to the discretion of the people. Respect is also important here. For a democracy to truly work, we would have to respect decisions made and the people around us.
Democracy may not be perfect, but then again, is anything?
528 words.
0
comments (create) -
(View)
* * *
Thursday, May 29, 2008
For the sake of it
Change the blogskin. An original. Testing out some stuff now.
0
comments (create) -
(View)
* * *
Thursday, May 15, 2008
今天
今天发生的事实在太多了。
丧礼，感到无奈，觉得自己是在没用。
校里，伤心、恐惧、担心、忙碌。真想解释，又束手无策。
累了
倦了
或许忙碌可冲淡一切？
又有何意义呢？
哦，真是语无伦次了。
今天简直是场噩梦，多希望能醒醒。
0
comments (create) -
(View)
* * *
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Midnight snack
Ah, McFlurry at midnight. A most interesting endeavor.
And its over. phew.
wake up to face another day kiddo.
:(
0
comments (create) -
(View)
* * *
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
SS Assignment
Social Studies Performance Task
BLOG DISCUSSION
Clement Kweh | Qiu Yunfei | Ren Zhaolin | Yeo Yong Jin
Secondary 3H
=====================The following discussion is solely meant for academic purposes as part of a school assignment.=====================
Topic: "Democracy creates stability in a society".
To begin, first, I feel we should set understandings as to what we term is "democracy" and stability.
Democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. An example of exercising this power directly is in the form of a referendum. The indirect form would be, in the case of S'pore, electing Members of Parliament (MP) that will represent the people in Parliament to exercise the people's power. It is also important to note that democracy is not a political ideology. Instead, democracy is built on the beliefs of liberalism and equality.
Moving on, what is "stability in a society"? In my opinion, we can look at this in 3 aspects - social, political and economical.
Social stability would refer to a society with no/little social unrest. Such unrest can come in the form of riots, demonstrations and so forth. However, in a stable society, the people would be happy and thus, such activities should not occur. Closely linked to this is the economical stability aspect.
An economically stable society would have a strong economy that would not break down easily. Prices are kept stable and unemployment rates are low.
Politically speaking, a stable society would be one without power struggles within the government and the citizens are happy with the government. In addition, people are free to choose their government and that there are more than 1 party to choose from.
Now, back to examining the question.
I agree to a large extent that democracy would create stability. As aforementioned, we are examining the satisfaction of the people with the government and the social norms. Democracy allows for people to choose their own government and exercise their choice and opinion on affairs of the state. This empowers the people and people would, naturally, feel good. In addition, democracy is based on the ideology of equality. Such fairness that comes with democracy would allow for a more peaceful society without discrimination. The voting system is proof to this where it is "one person, one vote".
Using information from http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue3/0306p29.htm, we can see the following.
Democracy is about the means used to achieve goals. Democratic values and processes imply peace, reconciliation, dialogs, consensus and, above all, intellectual and political choice. Stability is on the consensus of the governed, which is through democracy. Democracy elects leaders that are more accountable to voters, and hence more likely to improve lives of citizens.
The source also cites evidence that democracy can deliver base on the fact that highest level of developments are usually democracies.
To quote and sum up, "Democracy and development enable people to choose their rulers and their way of life. Both can be mutually reinforcing: they require the rule of law, independent courts that can enforce the law impartially, and political parties and parliaments that represent voters.
Democracy and development also complement each other. The political choices offered by democracy are linked to the social and economic choices offered by development. Choice-the freedom to determine one's destiny-is the hallmark of both democracy and development. "
Do continue to add on through "Comments"
13
comments (create) -
(View)
* * *
