Group Members:
Aravin Kumar (1)
Akshay Ramachandran (2)
Armaan Ashraf (5)
Joel Foo (13)
Title of Discussion: Does Democracy Create Stability?
Mode of Discussion: Windows Live Messenger, to be posted on Blog
Armaan: Firstly, we shall discuss on the definitions, beginning with democracy.
Aravin: Democracy can be defined as the representation of the people through representatives who have been elected by the public itself.
Armaan: Basically democracy is like you said, representation of people through representatives through lets say elections and it's generally the 'majority wins’ situation.
Joel: I agree.
Akshay: It is a government for the people.
Joel: It is a political ideology whereby where the people decide who is represented.
Armaan: Firstly, we shall discuss on the definitions, beginning with democracy.
Aravin: Democracy can be defined as the representation of the people through representatives who have been elected by the public itself.
Armaan: Basically democracy is like you said, representation of people through representatives through lets say elections and it's generally the 'majority wins’ situation.
Joel: I agree.
Akshay: It is a government for the people.
Joel: It is a political ideology whereby where the people decide who is represented.
Aravin: Yes. It is considered to be the fairest political ideology as the choice of governing body, and hence the resulting laws and policies, are in the hands of the voting public.
Akshay: The people get to exercise their freedom of choice.
Armaan: There is a freedom of choice in a certain sense. Not everyone gets their way. It depends on majority's choices.
Akshay: True. There are two types of democracy; pure democracy and representative democracy.
Aravin: Lets move on to stability.
Akshay: Stability is the quality or attribute of being firm and steadfast.
Joel: There are a few aspects of stability; social, economic and political.
Armaan: Yes. I agree.
Akshay: The people get to exercise their freedom of choice.
Armaan: There is a freedom of choice in a certain sense. Not everyone gets their way. It depends on majority's choices.
Akshay: True. There are two types of democracy; pure democracy and representative democracy.
Aravin: Lets move on to stability.
Akshay: Stability is the quality or attribute of being firm and steadfast.
Joel: There are a few aspects of stability; social, economic and political.
Armaan: Yes. I agree.
Akshay: To achieve economic stability, there should be firmness in the economy and not be any rapid fluctuations or crisis.
Aravin: I prefer to think of stability as a state where there are little if any complications within the society and hence the governing body does no face any pressure.
Armaan: Stability generally comes about when there is little or minimal problems in terms of social, economical and political state.
Joel: Yes, something like a 'well-balanced' trouble free and peaceful nation.
Akshay: I think we can accept that too. However, being peaceful does not guarantee stability. It just means there is no war or division in the society.
Armaan: Are you sure that there is such thing as a trouble free nations? Nothing is perfect. Is there even a perfect society?
Joel: Correction then to minimal trouble.
Aravin: I also believe that stability in a society can be achieved only when there are little or any conflicting ideologies with the government.
Armaan: I think we can all agree on that.
Akshay: Yup.
Joel: Yes.
Akshay: Now let's discuss the feasibility of society. Society is an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
Armaan: Yes.
Aravin: I guess a society is more of a group of people, living as members of a community, with mutual understandings and beliefs.
Armaan: It is generally just a group of people living together.
Aravin: Moving on, how feasible is a stable society?
Akshay: Why do you think people want democracy?
Joel: To get a fair chance.
Akshay: What do you think people hope to achieve through democracy?
Aravin: People believe in democracy because they get represented through democracy.
Akshay: Firstly, I think they want their views and opinions to be echoed and heard. Hence, they would like democracy as it helps in their representation.
Joel: Basically people would want a fair chance and a fair chance for everyone else.
Aravin: Their needs are voiced through their representative and hence they are taken care of.
Armaan: Generally it's just a fair thing for all. And the representation by election makes most happy or satisfied.
Akshay: Democracy is also useful as it serves as an outlet for the people’s feelings. People can openly express their views and not be constrained.
Joel: Yes, a sort of fair chance to put their views forward.
Armaan: The public's voice can easily be heard.
Akshay: An example of a country that practices democracy is America.
Aravin: Yes. It has a very clear cut democratic government.
Armaan: Yes, two parties with elections.
Akshay: The people can choose between democrats and republicans The two parties have different ideologies and the people can subscribe to a variety of views.
Armaan: Singapore considers itself to be a democratic society in a way.
Aravin: I disagree. Singapore is mainly a one-party government.
Armaan: However in some ways, it s not really democratic as there has been one party that has been leading Singapore.
Joel: But Singapore still has representatives in the parliament right? People still get a chance to choose other parties.
Akshay: Singapore is only slightly democratic as PAP always dominates.
Aravin: Making Singapore on the border of totalitarianism.
Akshay: The importance in democracy is that equal chances must be given to all parties. I think totalitarian too harsh a term.
Aravin: Me too, emphasizing Singapore being on the border.
Armaan: If we look at Malaysia for instance, Barisan Nasional (BN) has been ruling with a landslide majority for years since independence. However, in the recently concluded elections, opposition seems to have gotten a fair share of the parliament.
Joel: Yes, another party could take over the government in the near future.
Akshay: It seems to be a similar situation to Singapore.
Aravin: Yes. Recently however, BN suffered some losses in major states.
Armaan: Therefore, in a way, Singapore is not totally totalitarian and neither is it purely democratic.
Akshay: I think, now democracy is starting to resurface.
Joel: Therefore, from this we can see that people are able to put their views forward fairly.
Aravin: However, Malaysia is not yet purely democratic due to some theocratic influences.
Armaan: What are the countries that have succeeded under democracy?
Akshay: I think we should look at America as it is more obvious.
Joel: Singapore can be used if you look at the political history at the time of Labour Front, PAP and etc.
Armaan: Yes. I agree.
Akshay: I think we can look at the victory of David Marshall and its consequences. We can also compare it to pap's current regime. Previously, it was more democratic. Now, it is more of a single-ruling party. We can draw comparisons.
Aravin: There were many parties competing for political power.
Armaan: Generally the mistake made by Marshall inflicted serious damage to their party and since then people voted for other parties.
Aravin: The government was a diverse one and since the mistake, Marshall’s party has been out of the political scene.
Armaan: The people do not want the same mistake to be repeated and an incompetent government would not do them any good.
Akshay: We can see this as an effort by the people to express their views as voting is in the hands of the people.
Aravin: However, how did Singapore change from clean democracy to now a mutated form of one-part democracy?
Joel: This is because people trusted in the PAP and therefore did not really need the other parties as PAP ruled well.
Armaan: And this probably led to people being satisfied. Another reason people won't vote for other parties is that the people are used to the rule of PAP that a change in lifestyle might not be satisfiable to the people.
Akshay: We have to consider whether the people felt that choosing PAP would bring about more 'stability' to Singapore.
Aravin: However, then we can say that this would occur to most democratic countries.
Aravin: I prefer to think of stability as a state where there are little if any complications within the society and hence the governing body does no face any pressure.
Armaan: Stability generally comes about when there is little or minimal problems in terms of social, economical and political state.
Joel: Yes, something like a 'well-balanced' trouble free and peaceful nation.
Akshay: I think we can accept that too. However, being peaceful does not guarantee stability. It just means there is no war or division in the society.
Armaan: Are you sure that there is such thing as a trouble free nations? Nothing is perfect. Is there even a perfect society?
Joel: Correction then to minimal trouble.
Aravin: I also believe that stability in a society can be achieved only when there are little or any conflicting ideologies with the government.
Armaan: I think we can all agree on that.
Akshay: Yup.
Joel: Yes.
Akshay: Now let's discuss the feasibility of society. Society is an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
Armaan: Yes.
Aravin: I guess a society is more of a group of people, living as members of a community, with mutual understandings and beliefs.
Armaan: It is generally just a group of people living together.
Aravin: Moving on, how feasible is a stable society?
Akshay: Why do you think people want democracy?
Joel: To get a fair chance.
Akshay: What do you think people hope to achieve through democracy?
Aravin: People believe in democracy because they get represented through democracy.
Akshay: Firstly, I think they want their views and opinions to be echoed and heard. Hence, they would like democracy as it helps in their representation.
Joel: Basically people would want a fair chance and a fair chance for everyone else.
Aravin: Their needs are voiced through their representative and hence they are taken care of.
Armaan: Generally it's just a fair thing for all. And the representation by election makes most happy or satisfied.
Akshay: Democracy is also useful as it serves as an outlet for the people’s feelings. People can openly express their views and not be constrained.
Joel: Yes, a sort of fair chance to put their views forward.
Armaan: The public's voice can easily be heard.
Akshay: An example of a country that practices democracy is America.
Aravin: Yes. It has a very clear cut democratic government.
Armaan: Yes, two parties with elections.
Akshay: The people can choose between democrats and republicans The two parties have different ideologies and the people can subscribe to a variety of views.
Armaan: Singapore considers itself to be a democratic society in a way.
Aravin: I disagree. Singapore is mainly a one-party government.
Armaan: However in some ways, it s not really democratic as there has been one party that has been leading Singapore.
Joel: But Singapore still has representatives in the parliament right? People still get a chance to choose other parties.
Akshay: Singapore is only slightly democratic as PAP always dominates.
Aravin: Making Singapore on the border of totalitarianism.
Akshay: The importance in democracy is that equal chances must be given to all parties. I think totalitarian too harsh a term.
Aravin: Me too, emphasizing Singapore being on the border.
Armaan: If we look at Malaysia for instance, Barisan Nasional (BN) has been ruling with a landslide majority for years since independence. However, in the recently concluded elections, opposition seems to have gotten a fair share of the parliament.
Joel: Yes, another party could take over the government in the near future.
Akshay: It seems to be a similar situation to Singapore.
Aravin: Yes. Recently however, BN suffered some losses in major states.
Armaan: Therefore, in a way, Singapore is not totally totalitarian and neither is it purely democratic.
Akshay: I think, now democracy is starting to resurface.
Joel: Therefore, from this we can see that people are able to put their views forward fairly.
Aravin: However, Malaysia is not yet purely democratic due to some theocratic influences.
Armaan: What are the countries that have succeeded under democracy?
Akshay: I think we should look at America as it is more obvious.
Joel: Singapore can be used if you look at the political history at the time of Labour Front, PAP and etc.
Armaan: Yes. I agree.
Akshay: I think we can look at the victory of David Marshall and its consequences. We can also compare it to pap's current regime. Previously, it was more democratic. Now, it is more of a single-ruling party. We can draw comparisons.
Aravin: There were many parties competing for political power.
Armaan: Generally the mistake made by Marshall inflicted serious damage to their party and since then people voted for other parties.
Aravin: The government was a diverse one and since the mistake, Marshall’s party has been out of the political scene.
Armaan: The people do not want the same mistake to be repeated and an incompetent government would not do them any good.
Akshay: We can see this as an effort by the people to express their views as voting is in the hands of the people.
Aravin: However, how did Singapore change from clean democracy to now a mutated form of one-part democracy?
Joel: This is because people trusted in the PAP and therefore did not really need the other parties as PAP ruled well.
Armaan: And this probably led to people being satisfied. Another reason people won't vote for other parties is that the people are used to the rule of PAP that a change in lifestyle might not be satisfiable to the people.
Akshay: We have to consider whether the people felt that choosing PAP would bring about more 'stability' to Singapore.
Aravin: However, then we can say that this would occur to most democratic countries.
Akshay: PAP uses more conservative methods.
Joel: Yes this would occur as people would get used to a certain party thus bringing out dominance.
Aravin: Yes and then most democratic societies would become one-party dominated societies. Is this desirable?
Armaan: Unless the PAP or any ruling party makes a crucial mistake, it would stay in power in Singapore or that country for a long time to come.
Akshay: People chose PAP as they felt that society was more stable under their regime
Aravin: There is no real opposition, leading to PAP dominance. Also, there are little societal problems.
Akshay: This would not make it fair to consider Singapore as being democratic.
Joel: So does the case study of Singapore say anything about democracy bringing out stability?
Armaan: So generally, has Singapore succeeded from its democratic past?
Joel: Yes, it has. Singapore is a rather stable country with a small number of problems.
Armaan: Democracy allows people to choose what they want. So most things are their choice.
Aravin: If it is the people’s choice, it would also be their fault if the government they elected is incompetent.
Akshay: That is partially true. It also depends on what the government promises initially.
Armaan: However, I think democracy also has its weaknesses. If the minority however, is large, there may be some instability.
Joel: Yes, there's still the minority to consider.
Aravin: Also, not always is the majority correct.
Joel: When a large minority isn’t happy will probably have riots and protests. Let's say 51% vote yes and 49% no then obviously minority will create lots of trouble.
Akshay: The people will be dissatisfied with the government and are prompted to take action to improve their state.
Armaan: 51-49 can cause a lot of chaos as the votes are almost split.
Aravin: Yes, recounts will be called.
Joel: Even if its quite close can see trouble.
Akshay: The people will have different views about their desired ruling style.
Armaan: Unlike Singapore, in which PAP usually gets 90% at least; this is a landslide majority.
Joel: Like the Malaysian elections some people not happy go do something with the political office in the state.
Akshay: Democracy generally creates instability as it creates a divide in the people. This could lead to social fragmentation in society.
Armaan: It depends on the situation and the people trying to get for governance.
Aravin: Also democracy usually depends a lot on literacy; it usually only works for countries with a high literate population.
Joel: People have to accept that lose means lose in democracy and how the way democracy is run.
Armaan: Because in some cases, if a govt makes a mistake, the other party or candidate gets a better edge over the election.
Akshay: How?
Aravin: People in less developed country tend to go with the same leader, unwilling to change and this is not always good.
Armaan: Yes, that's the weakness.
Aravin: For the case of Thailand the leaders can easily thwart them and deceive them due to their low literacy. Thaksin Shinawatra won all the country folks votes but he was leeching the countries resources for himself and so the military overpowered him. Same goes for Nigeria. Democracy does not usually provide any change at all.
Armaan: So in still developing countries, people go for the same leader, who actually can be a sort of a person who embezzles.
Joel: Or take advantage of the people.
Joel: Like the Malaysian elections some people not happy go do something with the political office in the state.
Akshay: Democracy generally creates instability as it creates a divide in the people. This could lead to social fragmentation in society.
Armaan: It depends on the situation and the people trying to get for governance.
Aravin: Also democracy usually depends a lot on literacy; it usually only works for countries with a high literate population.
Joel: People have to accept that lose means lose in democracy and how the way democracy is run.
Armaan: Because in some cases, if a govt makes a mistake, the other party or candidate gets a better edge over the election.
Akshay: How?
Aravin: People in less developed country tend to go with the same leader, unwilling to change and this is not always good.
Armaan: Yes, that's the weakness.
Aravin: For the case of Thailand the leaders can easily thwart them and deceive them due to their low literacy. Thaksin Shinawatra won all the country folks votes but he was leeching the countries resources for himself and so the military overpowered him. Same goes for Nigeria. Democracy does not usually provide any change at all.
Armaan: So in still developing countries, people go for the same leader, who actually can be a sort of a person who embezzles.
Joel: Or take advantage of the people.
Aravin: It is more of a foreign policy so that foreign relations will be stable.
Akshay: People are gullible and unaware of the fact that they are being cheated.
Aravin: But that is beside the point.
Armaan: Depends also like he mentioned earlier, the literacy.
Akshay: People are unquestioning.
Aravin: My point is that in countries where democracy has been adopted, change in government ruling parties are rarely seen.
Armaan: And IF there is going to be a change. People will split between the old government and also the better party or candidate.
Akshay: This is because there is very little fluctuation in the political policies of the party.
Armaan: And if that is going to happen, there may be some fragmentation.
Aravin: We can then conclude that democracy increases the chance of a one-party system in countries.
Armaan: I disagree. Democracy generally is more applicable to the almost totalitarian countries. It is better for them. But if it is like this, how can it be called democracy. If we look at the US, there is not really much conflict in a way even with Republican and Democrat with usually close number of vote difference.
Akshay: This could lead to political instability.
Joel: But people STILL have a choice.
Armaan: I think we are going back to square one.
Joel: So for democracy to work, the literacy level of a country must be of an adequate level and people must accept the way democracy works.
Akshay: However, if the literacy level is high, the people cold begin questioning and pointing out the flaws.
Joel: Yes then the people would shift towards the party that they think is better.
Akshay: So this could result in political instability.
Armaan: People still have a choice and have to accept it. I think, we are kind of back to square one. Its not the problem with democracy you are explaining. Its the problem of the LEADERS doing bad things.
Akshay: You are right.
Joel: The problem is that there MUST be certain criteria for democracy to work and that isn’t always guaranteed. Like the literacy and acceptance thing must be there, if not it wouldn’t work.
Aravin: Didn’t we already talk about that.
Armaan: Democracy depends on the voters, totally on the voters. If there is a lot of democracy, there will be more of a freedom of choice.
Aravin: And because of that? Voters are not always right,rite?
Akshay: True. They just vote on what the candidate portrays him to be; the candidate could be deceiving.
Aravin: Especially if they are not literate.
Armaan: But actually, it kind of is an almost perfect thing.
Akshay: Why?
Joel: Yeah, so this is why the criteria are needed.
Akshay: Armaan, substantiate your statement.
Armaan: It's an almost perfect thing because it depends on the people. So if the people make a mistake, its their problem. But the literacy part should kick in. So if there is low literacy, there has to be more control not by the people.
Akshay: It's perfect for the ruling party, not the citizens.
Joel: We are going back to the same conclusion. There must be a criteria; solves most problems.
Armaan: It DOES solve most problems. Democracy is best for those who can decide what is best for them. Illiterates or people who are uneducated maybe should have restrictions. So, in underdeveloped countries, democracy might not necessarily work.
Akshay: But they could be deceived.
Aravin: In conclusion, Democracy is a good type of PI. However, it should only be used in developed countries due to its literacy requirements and its inability to bring a short-term change.
Armaan: Compared to most other PIs it is the probably the best for those who can decide what's best for themselves
Akshay: It's solely based on the decision-making of the people.
Armaan: For people who can't, there should be other PI which holds more control from the leaders rather than the people. So, if the people make the wrong decision, it's their fault, and if they make the wrong decision, they can still make changes.
Akshay: It would have to be a governemnt centralised around the people.
Armaan: In conclusion, democracy is actually a good type of PI that can create stability.
End of Discussion
No comments:
Post a Comment