Less than a year into his tenure, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukada resigned suddenly on the 1st of September this year, launching his country into political turbulence and economic uncertainty. He did so during an evening news conference, saying that he was stepping down to avoid a “political vacuum”, following a divided parliament locked in a stalemate.
The Japanese parliament is split between his ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which controls the lower house, and the opposition, which controls the upper house. The opposition parties have blocked government bills and appointments, including Fukada’s preferred governor of the central bank. Last November, Japanese ships were forced to temporarily withdraw from a refuelling mission in support of US-led forces in Afghanistan after the upper house refused to extend it. "If it will help even a little bit to make the parliamentary session go smoother, I decided that it might be better for someone other than me to lead," he said in a televised speech. Fukuda had failed to achieve a compromise with the Democrats, trying to get them to realize that political bargaining and arguments in Parliament had no place in people’s livelihoods.
Cabinet problems were not the only push factors for Fukuda. "You may say it's irresponsible for me to resign at this time. Well, it would be good if parliamentary proceedings went smoothly if I stayed on, but in my case, I also had support ratings, along with various other problems," he said. His party had hoped his leadership at Japan's summertime summit of the leaders of the Group of Eight major industrialized countries would help his approval ratings. But the numbers barely budged. Latest poll rankings have showed that his support had slumped to 29% over the past month, showing clearly his unpopularity with the people.
The launch of the $18-billion economic stimulus package only days earlier was also inconsequential to his image. The package, aimed at bolstering the flagging economy, was regarded by many analysts as ineffective. It proposed greater spending and tax cuts, yet, growth has continued in a downward spiral due to anemic consumer spending and rising fuel and food prices.
The announcement also came one month after Fukuda installed his widely expected successor, former Foreign Minister Taro Aso, as secretary general of the Liberal Democratic Party, aiming for a surge in support for the government. He conceded that both the political reshuffle and the economic stimulus package had failed to boost support for his extremely disliked administration.
Fukada’s resignation brings to light new speculation on the Japanese political arena. Some believe that he had reached his breaking point. Others, like analyst Minoru Morita, say his resignation was “done with calculation”. He believes that Fukuda knew that the Liberal Democratic Party would lose if they contested an election under the current circumstances, and Fukuda could not bear to have that happen under him, so he resigned to allow another Liberal Democrat to run the country—this has brought about a string of protests from the opposition.
Fukuda’s resignation has thrown the political race into the open, and it is now anybody’s game.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Conclusion
Democracy is after all a political theory, and requires its assumptions and conditions to be met, before it can truly function as intended. We can see that from the examples, democracy works for some countries, but not others, and this is because of some of the assumptions that are not met. As such, democracy may or may not bring about stability.
-Daniel Chander
-Daniel Chander
Contradictions
Contradictions
One of the fundamental principles of democracy is majority-rule. The majority is said to be able to influence or decide on the major decisions the country makes. Without responsible government, minority rights could be abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. But to put things into perspective, in the western world approximately 95% of the wealth is possessed by approximately 5% of the people. That means, using these same figures, that 95% of the people, the overwhelming majority, possess only 5% of the wealth. From the past US elections, we know that the campaigns of presidential candidates are bankrolled mainly by their rich supporters—and therefore, if they get into a position of power, they are indebted to these people. That suggests that this richest 5% of the people have the potential to influence the decisions of people in positions of power, so why then is democracy termed “majority-rule”?
To quote from a website, “When did the 95% of people, the overwhelming majority, ever vote for the right for themselves to be poor and vote for the tiny 5% minority to possess their own (the poor people's) share of the nation's wealth that the poor majority's ancestors have fought and died to protect?”
This is the contradiction of democracy.
This “majority-rule” is what the politicians and the richest 5% want us to believe, as what they call democracy.
-Daryl Yeo
One of the fundamental principles of democracy is majority-rule. The majority is said to be able to influence or decide on the major decisions the country makes. Without responsible government, minority rights could be abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. But to put things into perspective, in the western world approximately 95% of the wealth is possessed by approximately 5% of the people. That means, using these same figures, that 95% of the people, the overwhelming majority, possess only 5% of the wealth. From the past US elections, we know that the campaigns of presidential candidates are bankrolled mainly by their rich supporters—and therefore, if they get into a position of power, they are indebted to these people. That suggests that this richest 5% of the people have the potential to influence the decisions of people in positions of power, so why then is democracy termed “majority-rule”?
To quote from a website, “When did the 95% of people, the overwhelming majority, ever vote for the right for themselves to be poor and vote for the tiny 5% minority to possess their own (the poor people's) share of the nation's wealth that the poor majority's ancestors have fought and died to protect?”
This is the contradiction of democracy.
This “majority-rule” is what the politicians and the richest 5% want us to believe, as what they call democracy.
-Daryl Yeo
Democracy does create stability in a society
I believe that democracy does indeed create stability. We can see this from 3 viewpoints, social, political and economic.
Firstly, we will analyze this from a social point of view. Democracy elects leaders through a process of voting. Through this process, the people votes for the party which best represent their interests and how they want the country to be. Due to the nature of democracy, the interests of the majority will be reflected in the leaders they choose to lead the country, which will result in most of the people being happy. This uses utilitarianism where the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
Also, the people are given a fair chance to vote, as each man or woman above 18, regardless of race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are all allowed to vote, and each man or woman counts as 1 vote each. This is a fair process in which everyone has a fair say, and is a very stable voting process. As the people are also given freedom of speech to any issue, there is minimal need for any rioting or striking. Minority groups will also have their views represented, and not be shunned for being the minority. They have their own right to speech, and are treated equally. This would thus also result in a stable and turmoil-free society.
It is also proven that democracy has a higher score on the human development index. This suggests that democracies put in place a better education system, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and better health care than states run by dictatorships. This is not due to any help from any foreign assistance, or spending more money on these aspects. Instead, in a democratic society, these available resources are managed better. This therefore creates a more peaceful and stable society, with the resources well balanced out.
Secondly, from a political perspective, the voting will reflect the choice of the majority, and thus they would most logically elect the best leaders to lead their country, according to their interests. Capable leaders who represent the right cause can take a country to greater heights, in terms of economic, political, and social development.
Also, as it is a fair process, opposition parties have to accept the choice of the majority and come to terms with the results of an election. The choice is made by the people, and it is a fair choice which reflects what the people want, and thus the opposition has not much reason to oppose and fight against the decision. This would thus promote political stability within the country, as leaders are selected based on their caliber and ability to lead the country, by the people, for the people.
There are also many political histories on the topic of democracy. Statistics have proven that liberal democracies have never waged war on one another. This is because a democratic system invests power in all of the people and these gives fairness regardless of race language or religion. Therefore there will not be conflicts due to distribution of power, citizenship rights etc. Democracies have also been proven to have little civil wars and minimal conflicts.
Thirdly, from an economic perspective, a democratic society would also promote economic growth. It is also proven that democracy has a higher score on the human development index. This suggests that democracies put in place a better education system, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and better health care than states run by dictatorships. This is not due to any help from any foreign assistance, or spending more money on these aspects. Instead, in a democratic society, these available resources area managed better. This therefore creates a more peaceful and stable society, with the resources well balanced out. People earn what they deserve, whereas in a communist society, people’s earnings are shared and in a monarchy country, a huge portion of the earnings goes to the king. The people in a democratic society will have to work hard to earn money and this system is good because assuming that everyone is working hard, the country would maximize the manpower and earn a lot of money. The people will generally be motivated to work hard, as they would be earning money for themselves, which then drives the economy and thus the country can flourish and attain prosperity.
In conclusion, I feel that democracy does indeed create stability. The people are treated equally, and the citizens are happy with their lives, and thus there would be no need for any rioting or strikes. Also, there is fair political competition within the country, and everything is carried out in a peaceful and stable manner. Democracy also helps promote a strong and prosperous economy. All these examples point towards how democracy does indeed help to create a stable and secure country for the people.
-Daniel Lau
Firstly, we will analyze this from a social point of view. Democracy elects leaders through a process of voting. Through this process, the people votes for the party which best represent their interests and how they want the country to be. Due to the nature of democracy, the interests of the majority will be reflected in the leaders they choose to lead the country, which will result in most of the people being happy. This uses utilitarianism where the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
Also, the people are given a fair chance to vote, as each man or woman above 18, regardless of race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are all allowed to vote, and each man or woman counts as 1 vote each. This is a fair process in which everyone has a fair say, and is a very stable voting process. As the people are also given freedom of speech to any issue, there is minimal need for any rioting or striking. Minority groups will also have their views represented, and not be shunned for being the minority. They have their own right to speech, and are treated equally. This would thus also result in a stable and turmoil-free society.
It is also proven that democracy has a higher score on the human development index. This suggests that democracies put in place a better education system, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and better health care than states run by dictatorships. This is not due to any help from any foreign assistance, or spending more money on these aspects. Instead, in a democratic society, these available resources are managed better. This therefore creates a more peaceful and stable society, with the resources well balanced out.
Secondly, from a political perspective, the voting will reflect the choice of the majority, and thus they would most logically elect the best leaders to lead their country, according to their interests. Capable leaders who represent the right cause can take a country to greater heights, in terms of economic, political, and social development.
Also, as it is a fair process, opposition parties have to accept the choice of the majority and come to terms with the results of an election. The choice is made by the people, and it is a fair choice which reflects what the people want, and thus the opposition has not much reason to oppose and fight against the decision. This would thus promote political stability within the country, as leaders are selected based on their caliber and ability to lead the country, by the people, for the people.
There are also many political histories on the topic of democracy. Statistics have proven that liberal democracies have never waged war on one another. This is because a democratic system invests power in all of the people and these gives fairness regardless of race language or religion. Therefore there will not be conflicts due to distribution of power, citizenship rights etc. Democracies have also been proven to have little civil wars and minimal conflicts.
Thirdly, from an economic perspective, a democratic society would also promote economic growth. It is also proven that democracy has a higher score on the human development index. This suggests that democracies put in place a better education system, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and better health care than states run by dictatorships. This is not due to any help from any foreign assistance, or spending more money on these aspects. Instead, in a democratic society, these available resources area managed better. This therefore creates a more peaceful and stable society, with the resources well balanced out. People earn what they deserve, whereas in a communist society, people’s earnings are shared and in a monarchy country, a huge portion of the earnings goes to the king. The people in a democratic society will have to work hard to earn money and this system is good because assuming that everyone is working hard, the country would maximize the manpower and earn a lot of money. The people will generally be motivated to work hard, as they would be earning money for themselves, which then drives the economy and thus the country can flourish and attain prosperity.
In conclusion, I feel that democracy does indeed create stability. The people are treated equally, and the citizens are happy with their lives, and thus there would be no need for any rioting or strikes. Also, there is fair political competition within the country, and everything is carried out in a peaceful and stable manner. Democracy also helps promote a strong and prosperous economy. All these examples point towards how democracy does indeed help to create a stable and secure country for the people.
-Daniel Lau
Assumptions for Democracy to Function, and why Democracy Does Not Promote Stablity
I agree with Daniel’s rough definition of democracy and societal stability.
I believe democracy relies on a few assumptions for it to function properly as a system of governance, and when these assumptions are not met; the stability of a society hangs in the balance.
It is assumed that for democracy to function properly, everyone will have to be treated equally, and there will be no discrimination against a certain group of people. Any man or woman above the age of 18 has a right to 1 vote per person, and people are eligible to vote, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
However, there have been also cases in the past where the people’s votes were treated unfairly. Take for example the case of the Afro-Americans, who were not given the right to vote in the early 20th Century, and their interests were not represented in the government. In Northern Ireland, the Stormont government practiced gerrymandering, which ensured that they still stayed in power, although a significant portion of the country’s population was not happy with the government.
Thus, we can see that in our modern day situation, racism and discrimination are still very present in society. This means that democracy is not fully achieved, and there are still minority groups which are being discriminated against, and can potentially cause unrest and violence through conflicts.
Democracy also requires for the people to vote responsibly. This means that the people do not take any bribes to vote for a selected party, or are biased towards any party. It is the duty of the people to vote for capable leaders who can lead the country, and not vote for a party based on bias or accepting bribes. Such irresponsible and immature behavior from the people will skew the votes, and demolishes the idea of democratic elections. With corruption and bias, democracy cannot function as well.
There are still many corrupted leaders till this day, who use money and politicking to buy themselves unfair votes. These leaders may not necessarily be the best to lead the country, and may instead lead the country to a worse state.
Lastly, it is also assumed that the majority is right in voting for the party to represent them. There have been cases in the past where the leaders of the country were not necessarily right, such as corrupt or biased leaders. In turn, they made decisions which made the country unstable and did not benefit the general population in the long run. This also encapsulates the need for citizens to be educated enough to vote the candidate who represents him/her best, and would serve the country and the community well.
IBSEN, HENRIK, An Enemy of the People, once said, “The majority never has right on its side. Never I say! That is one of the social lies that a free, thinking man is bound to rebel against. Who makes up the majority in any given country? Is it the wise men or the fools? I think we must agree that the fools are in a terrible overwhelming majority, all the wide world over.
One good example would be that of Sri Lanka. After the occupation of the British, the country was left to vote for their own government democratically. The Pro-Sinhalese government won due to the majority of population being Sinhalese. This government passed down many discriminatory and prejudiced policies, which went against the Tamils and their culture, language etc. This aggravated the Tamil community much, and they formed paramilitary groups such as the LTTE, and generated much conflict and bloodshed between the Tamils and Sinhalese. As such, we can see that the leaders of the country may not necessarily always make the right decisions.
Thus, for democracy to function properly and generate stability in a society, these assumptions have to be met before it can be considered true democracy. But as we can see from the examples quoted, prejudice, corruption, and unfair elections are still very real in our world. Despite these nations being democratic, they have much unrest and do not have a stable and capable government. As such, democracy does not always bring about stability.
-Wilson Pek
I believe democracy relies on a few assumptions for it to function properly as a system of governance, and when these assumptions are not met; the stability of a society hangs in the balance.
It is assumed that for democracy to function properly, everyone will have to be treated equally, and there will be no discrimination against a certain group of people. Any man or woman above the age of 18 has a right to 1 vote per person, and people are eligible to vote, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
However, there have been also cases in the past where the people’s votes were treated unfairly. Take for example the case of the Afro-Americans, who were not given the right to vote in the early 20th Century, and their interests were not represented in the government. In Northern Ireland, the Stormont government practiced gerrymandering, which ensured that they still stayed in power, although a significant portion of the country’s population was not happy with the government.
Thus, we can see that in our modern day situation, racism and discrimination are still very present in society. This means that democracy is not fully achieved, and there are still minority groups which are being discriminated against, and can potentially cause unrest and violence through conflicts.
Democracy also requires for the people to vote responsibly. This means that the people do not take any bribes to vote for a selected party, or are biased towards any party. It is the duty of the people to vote for capable leaders who can lead the country, and not vote for a party based on bias or accepting bribes. Such irresponsible and immature behavior from the people will skew the votes, and demolishes the idea of democratic elections. With corruption and bias, democracy cannot function as well.
There are still many corrupted leaders till this day, who use money and politicking to buy themselves unfair votes. These leaders may not necessarily be the best to lead the country, and may instead lead the country to a worse state.
Lastly, it is also assumed that the majority is right in voting for the party to represent them. There have been cases in the past where the leaders of the country were not necessarily right, such as corrupt or biased leaders. In turn, they made decisions which made the country unstable and did not benefit the general population in the long run. This also encapsulates the need for citizens to be educated enough to vote the candidate who represents him/her best, and would serve the country and the community well.
IBSEN, HENRIK, An Enemy of the People, once said, “The majority never has right on its side. Never I say! That is one of the social lies that a free, thinking man is bound to rebel against. Who makes up the majority in any given country? Is it the wise men or the fools? I think we must agree that the fools are in a terrible overwhelming majority, all the wide world over.
One good example would be that of Sri Lanka. After the occupation of the British, the country was left to vote for their own government democratically. The Pro-Sinhalese government won due to the majority of population being Sinhalese. This government passed down many discriminatory and prejudiced policies, which went against the Tamils and their culture, language etc. This aggravated the Tamil community much, and they formed paramilitary groups such as the LTTE, and generated much conflict and bloodshed between the Tamils and Sinhalese. As such, we can see that the leaders of the country may not necessarily always make the right decisions.
Thus, for democracy to function properly and generate stability in a society, these assumptions have to be met before it can be considered true democracy. But as we can see from the examples quoted, prejudice, corruption, and unfair elections are still very real in our world. Despite these nations being democratic, they have much unrest and do not have a stable and capable government. As such, democracy does not always bring about stability.
-Wilson Pek
Perceptions
I feel that before we start discussing whether democracy creates stability in a society, it is important to explain our interpretation of this system of government and the key ideals underlying its concept, and to define how we perceive stability in a society.
Webster’s on-line Dictionary describes democracy as: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”
But, I believe a more concise and insightful definition of democracy can be derived from the Greek word “δημοκρατία” (demokratia) which was coined from “δήμος” (dēmos), and “κράτος” (kratos), meaning “people” and “power” respectively. Simply put, democracy is people power—by the people, for the people, and through the people.
Democracy comprises two fundamental political beliefs—liberalism and equality. These two guiding principles emphasize individual rights, the freedom of thought and speech, and considers all individuals of equal value regardless of personal profile, and entitles them to equal opportunities for education, jobs, political influence, and deems everyone equal in the eye of the law. This forms the basis for the many varieties of democratic structure which differ in their extent of representing liberalism and equality.
Each political system has distinct features and practices, and democracy is characterized by its regular, free, and fair elections. Elections are held every few years, and most adult citizens have the right to stand for government office. Intimidation, corruption and threats to citizens during or before an election are against the principles of democracy. In most democracies, there is a multi-party representation in parliament, where more than one political party must participate in elections and play a role in government. This helps to provide the government with different viewpoints on issues and provides voters with a choice of candidates, parties, and policies to vote for. These opposition members of parliament help to keep the government on their toes and urge for accountability and transparency of the country’s affairs.
But the most defining aspect of democracy is “majority-rule”. Decisions which affect society (such as elections, policies, etc) are put to a vote, and the majority wins.
Societal stability is said to be multi-faceted. It is generally characterized into three broad spectrums—social stability, economic stability, and political stability. Peace and tolerance in society is essential to stability, with riots and strikes being rare occurrences. I believe that the stability of a society can be evaluated by how it responds to the extremes of human and natural behaviour. Therefore, there needs to be a strong societal backbone, with a total defense system which involves not only the civil service, but the entire population, to react and recover quickly in an event of distress or natural disaster. This would only be possible with a stable economy and government. And a stable economy is not a stagnant economy. It entails a dynamic and vibrant market, with a low unemployment rate and sufficient reserves. Political stability requires a strong, corrupt-free government which does not bow down to protests and is accountable for its actions.
Democracy is but a political theory, and theories do not bring about stability; it is the application of these theories that shape societies. I believe that the aim of our discussion is to show how the application of the different types of democracy, through good and bad governments in different countries and circumstances, have and have not brought stability to their societies.
-Daniel Chander
Webster’s on-line Dictionary describes democracy as: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”
But, I believe a more concise and insightful definition of democracy can be derived from the Greek word “δημοκρατία” (demokratia) which was coined from “δήμος” (dēmos), and “κράτος” (kratos), meaning “people” and “power” respectively. Simply put, democracy is people power—by the people, for the people, and through the people.
Democracy comprises two fundamental political beliefs—liberalism and equality. These two guiding principles emphasize individual rights, the freedom of thought and speech, and considers all individuals of equal value regardless of personal profile, and entitles them to equal opportunities for education, jobs, political influence, and deems everyone equal in the eye of the law. This forms the basis for the many varieties of democratic structure which differ in their extent of representing liberalism and equality.
Each political system has distinct features and practices, and democracy is characterized by its regular, free, and fair elections. Elections are held every few years, and most adult citizens have the right to stand for government office. Intimidation, corruption and threats to citizens during or before an election are against the principles of democracy. In most democracies, there is a multi-party representation in parliament, where more than one political party must participate in elections and play a role in government. This helps to provide the government with different viewpoints on issues and provides voters with a choice of candidates, parties, and policies to vote for. These opposition members of parliament help to keep the government on their toes and urge for accountability and transparency of the country’s affairs.
But the most defining aspect of democracy is “majority-rule”. Decisions which affect society (such as elections, policies, etc) are put to a vote, and the majority wins.
Societal stability is said to be multi-faceted. It is generally characterized into three broad spectrums—social stability, economic stability, and political stability. Peace and tolerance in society is essential to stability, with riots and strikes being rare occurrences. I believe that the stability of a society can be evaluated by how it responds to the extremes of human and natural behaviour. Therefore, there needs to be a strong societal backbone, with a total defense system which involves not only the civil service, but the entire population, to react and recover quickly in an event of distress or natural disaster. This would only be possible with a stable economy and government. And a stable economy is not a stagnant economy. It entails a dynamic and vibrant market, with a low unemployment rate and sufficient reserves. Political stability requires a strong, corrupt-free government which does not bow down to protests and is accountable for its actions.
Democracy is but a political theory, and theories do not bring about stability; it is the application of these theories that shape societies. I believe that the aim of our discussion is to show how the application of the different types of democracy, through good and bad governments in different countries and circumstances, have and have not brought stability to their societies.
-Daniel Chander
Introduction
This is Daniel Chander, and I will be hosting the SS Blog Discussion on the following motion:
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
Daniel Lau, Daryl, and Wilson, please feel free to post your views and queries on the topic. I hope that this would be an engaging and fruitful discussion!
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
Daniel Lau, Daryl, and Wilson, please feel free to post your views and queries on the topic. I hope that this would be an engaging and fruitful discussion!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
"Democracy creates stability in a society"
Democracy is defined as people power—by the people, for the people, and through the people, and comprises two fundamental political beliefs—liberalism and equality. These two guiding principles emphasize individual rights, the freedom of thought and speech, and consider all individuals of equal value.
Democracy is but a political theory, and theories do not bring about stability; it is the application of these theories that shape societies. I hope to explain how the key features of democracy affect societal stability, and to relate them to its implementation in different circumstances.
Societal stability is said to be multi-faceted. It is generally characterized into three broad spectrums—social stability, economic stability, and political stability. This includes peace and tolerance, a dynamic and vibrant economy, and a strong government which is accountable for its actions.
Democracy is also known as “the rule of the majority”. Democratic governments take into account the view of the majority to decide on issues. Yet, they also regard minority rights, and do not tolerate discrimination. Democracy also encourages active citizen participation and the representation of multiple viewpoints. This promotes a peaceful process of negotiation and mediation, locally, regionally, and internationally—testament to it bringing about social stability.
The democratic electoral process is said to be free, fair and regular. Elections are held every few years, and most adult citizens are allowed to stand for office. The multi-party representative system provides voters with a choice of candidates, parties, and policies to vote for. This keeps the government on their toes and urge for accountability and transparency of the country’s affairs. Therefore democracy can be said to have the ability to maintain political stability.
Studies have suggested that democratic freedom is tantamount to economic development. It allows for economic freedom, and unleashes the animal spirits of entrepreneurs. With free markets and private ownership of property and businesses, democracy allows for an economic explosion—which would establish a huge wave of capital, a low unemployment rate and sufficient reserves.
But democracy relies on various assumptions for it to function. It assumes that the majority of the citizens are well-educated, responsible and mature enough to know what’s best for them, their community and their society. A good example would be how Hitler instigated and convinced the people to carry out racial cleansing in Germany—and they followed him blindly.
Democracy also assumes that everyone is treated equally, and given equal opportunities, and that minority rights are not abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. For example, in Sri Lanka, the pro-Sinhalese government won due to the majority of population being Sinhalese. This government passed down many discriminatory against the Tamils, and this generated much conflict and bloodshed between the Tamils and Sinhalese. This shows that democracy does not always bring about societal stability.
I believe that there is no all-curing panacea to domestic and world problems because every country has a different history and socio-economic climate, and therefore, the stability of a society should be determined by the effectiveness of the government in handling the country’s issues, not by its choice of political theory. Yet, I feel that democracy has an important economic advantage—it allows for dynamic diversity, and this brings about stability, because the economy takes centre-stage in most societies.
Democracy is but a political theory, and theories do not bring about stability; it is the application of these theories that shape societies. I hope to explain how the key features of democracy affect societal stability, and to relate them to its implementation in different circumstances.
Societal stability is said to be multi-faceted. It is generally characterized into three broad spectrums—social stability, economic stability, and political stability. This includes peace and tolerance, a dynamic and vibrant economy, and a strong government which is accountable for its actions.
Democracy is also known as “the rule of the majority”. Democratic governments take into account the view of the majority to decide on issues. Yet, they also regard minority rights, and do not tolerate discrimination. Democracy also encourages active citizen participation and the representation of multiple viewpoints. This promotes a peaceful process of negotiation and mediation, locally, regionally, and internationally—testament to it bringing about social stability.
The democratic electoral process is said to be free, fair and regular. Elections are held every few years, and most adult citizens are allowed to stand for office. The multi-party representative system provides voters with a choice of candidates, parties, and policies to vote for. This keeps the government on their toes and urge for accountability and transparency of the country’s affairs. Therefore democracy can be said to have the ability to maintain political stability.
Studies have suggested that democratic freedom is tantamount to economic development. It allows for economic freedom, and unleashes the animal spirits of entrepreneurs. With free markets and private ownership of property and businesses, democracy allows for an economic explosion—which would establish a huge wave of capital, a low unemployment rate and sufficient reserves.
But democracy relies on various assumptions for it to function. It assumes that the majority of the citizens are well-educated, responsible and mature enough to know what’s best for them, their community and their society. A good example would be how Hitler instigated and convinced the people to carry out racial cleansing in Germany—and they followed him blindly.
Democracy also assumes that everyone is treated equally, and given equal opportunities, and that minority rights are not abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. For example, in Sri Lanka, the pro-Sinhalese government won due to the majority of population being Sinhalese. This government passed down many discriminatory against the Tamils, and this generated much conflict and bloodshed between the Tamils and Sinhalese. This shows that democracy does not always bring about societal stability.
I believe that there is no all-curing panacea to domestic and world problems because every country has a different history and socio-economic climate, and therefore, the stability of a society should be determined by the effectiveness of the government in handling the country’s issues, not by its choice of political theory. Yet, I feel that democracy has an important economic advantage—it allows for dynamic diversity, and this brings about stability, because the economy takes centre-stage in most societies.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Article
The article which inspired me to write on computer addiction is http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_gameaddiction.shtml
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Computer Addiction
Obsessively checking email. Playing online games for 12 hours at a time. Placing more value on chat-room friends than real friends. Neglecting family, work and personal health and hygiene. Failing exams. These are symptoms of a newly surfaced phenomenon: computer addiction.
Other telling stories: In school: a student’s GPA scores fall and he keeps falling asleep in class. A JC1 student gets a mid-term warning because he is behind course work. Instead, he is spending nightly on the Internet communicating with all his friends, and appears anti-social.
At home: A mother has difficulty in getting her child to do chores when computer games occupy all after school time. A husband finds his wife increasingly neglects family duties, is irritable at family gatherings, and the STAR HUB phone bill has risen astronomically to an on-line service number. A teenager connects to the Internet at
At a downtown office: An employee falls behind at work and a rising number of sick days raises questions about his value-addedness. A department head stays late nightly to meet deadlines. In-house computer monitoring use reveals he frequently accesses inappropriate sites, including gambling and pornography. An office supervisor suddenly resigns from her job. A lot of work is unfinished and the company asks her family to encourage her to return. They find her at home, hunched over a computer and completely oblivious to her surroundings.
These are examples of Computer Addiction, Internet Addictive Disorder or Cyber-addiction—like Pathological Gambling or Compulsive Shopping.
Few people are literally addicted to a computer as a physical object. They become addicted to activities performed on a computer, like instant messaging, viewing Internet pornography, playing video games checking e-mail and reading news articles.
Like other addictions, it affects other people -- family, friends, and co-workers. Spouses complain of loved ones neglecting them. Couples separate when one partner finds someone else on the Internet and leaves home. Like gamblers they compulsively keep investing time and money. They fantasize that the next connection will solve all their problems. Compulsive computer use can lead to divorce.
Computer addicts give different reasons for their habits. Obsessive chat room use or e-mailing might fill a void of loneliness, while excessive viewing of pornography might stem from relationship problems or childhood abuse.
Some doctors doubt it exists at all. Psychologists believe computer addiction is a compulsive behavior linked to an underlying condition. "Computer addicts” are really people who can't control their impulses, say these critics. Video-game addiction might be the result of fear-mongering -- scaring parents into thinking there's something wrong with their kids. Some critics contend that those obsessed with online gaming are similar to couch potatoes watching TV nightly: maybe they're just lazy.
Treatment choices include Cognitive Behavior Therapy, which teaches the patient to identify the problem, to solve the problem and to learn coping skills to prevent relapse. Often the treatment is helped by medication. Support groups are commended. In
Thus in IT-enabled
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)