“Democracy creates stability in a society.”
For purposes of discussion, the definition of democracy is a system of governance or a set of processes which includes equality, freedom of speech and the right to vote. Stability refers to a prolonged period of prosperity or no disruption socially or economically.
Personally, I vehemently disagree that democracy creates stability in a society. Democracy is essentially “the rule of the people, by the people and for the people” according to Abraham Lincoln. However, the fundamental principles of democracy assume that Man is inherently good and can make good decisions himself. This is too idealistic to be transposed into our complex situation today.
An example would be Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s. Despite being a dictator and a fascist, Hitler was elected into power through democratic means. He contested the Weimar Republic under the Nazi party and succeeded in getting the popular vote. After being in power, he consolidated his power through the Reichstag Fire and the Night of the Long Knives. His being in power subsequently led to the rise of Nazi Germany, and later contributing a major part in World War II as Axis Powers. To say that democracy creates stability is to conveniently ignore that Hitler’s rise to power was a product of “good and informed decisions” by the public. Clearly, World War II saw the loss of millions of lives, and many more millions displaced as a result of bloody conflict, a grotesque statistic as a testament to the instability democracy had brought about internationally.
Furthermore, the road to democracy can be very volatile for some countries. Under Gorbachev's rule of the USSR in the 1980s, political openness was advocated, known as glasnost. The Communist Party lost its tight stranglehold on the media, and the cult of personality that Stalin tried so hard to maintain was being questioned by the people. Furthermore, there were elections to vote people into regional assemblies of the republics of the Soviet Union - a clear sign of democratic processes. As a result, the people's view towards the government changed radically, and calls for independence grew louder and louder, till the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. After communism was overthrown, Russia's GDP declined drastically, and inflation shot up; there was an economic crisis. As such, democracy did nothing to help stabilise the nation, conversely, it helped to exacerbate the situation.
On the other hand, proponents of the above motion wax lyrical about the faultless American system, how she has successfully become the symbol of liberty, a place for all free men. What travesty this proclamation is. Racism is still prevalent today in America, with each race clearly conscious of its own identity, and an unwillingness to mix into a homogeneous American society. Homosexuals and transgender individuals are subjected to discrimination in the workplace and in society. And who could forget about the economic meltdown last October and the furore over the sub-prime saga, brought about by the best democracy in the world?
The reason why democracy is perceived to be the panacea of modern governance is a lack of comparison. One can only look to North Korea as a bona fide example of non-democracy. Juxtaposed with America’s high human development index rating, literacy rates and GDP, the DPRK comes woefully short. Democracy has been internationally accepted, so much so that no country with a shred of diplomatic intelligence would declare themselves otherwise.
In reality, democracy is far from the ideal governance any country should have. However, its benefits are relatively greater than other forms of governance like communism and socialism. Till a better system of governance is found, the façade that democracy is the panacea will remain.
