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.
* * *
