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