Of Democracy, Stability and Society

“Democracy creates stability in a society.”

Approximately 65% of countries in the world are democracies. Democratically speaking, we are a democratic world. Democracies are the most common form of governance in the world today.

A Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, where the people of the country get a say in the issues concerning their nation and where the majority rules. Derived from the Greek word “Demos” (people) and “kratia” (power), it literally means People-Power!

But does this necessitate that it creates stability in society? I think not. I disagree to a large extent that democracy creates stability in society, as I will prove in my essay.

There are two main forms of democracy in the world today, direct and representative, but since both are still democracies, I will be discussing both of them in my essay. Also, there are many degrees of democracies, from the liberal to the conservative. However, I will not make any such distinctions, but instead, discuss democracy as a whole.

Stability is a rather subjective concept, where sometimes, a society can be both stable and unstable at the same time, as I will discuss in my essay. But basically, to be stable is to be steady, enduring, resistant to change and steadfast.

Now, I shall begin on how, when and why democracy creates stability.

Equality, freedom of expression and fairness are the key virtues of democracy and its voting system. Everyone gets to vote on issues regarding the state. They are given the power to influence decisions that ultimately affects them. Laws and initiatives are passed according to the majority’s decisions. Thus, the government acts in the best interests of the majority of the people. The people are thus satisfied with their government and that their needs are being met. With satisfaction, conflict is chased away by peace and harmony, which results in stability.

Also, the government is of the people, and elected by the people and for the people. If the government fails to live up to the expectations of the people, and is unable or unwilling to exist for the people, or loses the people’s trust and respect, it can be replaced by another government which is also elected by the people. Any government that might potentially create instability is voted out of governance and a more capable one, in the people’s eyes, is re-elected.

Thus, we see that the people form the highest social strata of a democratic society. The entire society and government is made to revolve around its people. With their every whim and fancy attended to, the people are satisfied. Since the people form the society, society is satisfied. And a satisfied society is one that is resistant to drastic change, since it believes that it is already doing very well. So it remains steadfast and steady, and continuing its status quo, stably. Thus, democracy creates stability in society.

Now on the flip side of the coin, I shall begin examining how, why and when, democracy does not create stability for society.

Despite all the virtues of democracy, it is not perfect. Let us discuss the whole idea of the tyranny of the majority. A democracy is such that the majority gets to call the shots, disregarding the minority’s views. After all, a democracy disregards the idea of a herd mentality, and assumes that the more people agree to something, the better that decision would be. Therefore, the majority dictates over the minority.

Now this leads to the majority marginalising the minority, where the minority has to perpetually compromise. This minority would then be highly dissatisfied. It would want change, for more fairness. The plight they are facing is entirely contradictory to a democracy’s fundamental ideals of equality, freedom and fairness. But since they, being the minority, are unable to evoke change politically, they have no choice but to resort to violent physical means. Examining Sri Lanka and their Tamil Tigers’ protests, we know that the result is a highly unstable society.

Next, democracies are based on certain assumptions, that if untrue, tears down the whole system altogether. Democracies are based on decisions. The decisions its people make. However, a democracy also decides to assume that humans are rational beings, capable of making its own decisions. Therefore, it entrusts the common people to make all the decisions in the country. Whether or not these decisions are correct, or really in the best interests of the people, the democracy leaves it up to the people.

But what happens if this fundamental assumption is flawed? Perhaps people are not all that rational as they are assumed to be. Then, what kind of decisions can we expect the people to make? What kind of decisions do irrational beings made? Bad ones, I assure you. Drawing an analogy, it is similar to having an irrational dictator lead you. The dictator is chosen because I have already proven how tyrannically similar to dictators the majority can be. Looking back to a sad time in history, irrational dictators like Adolf Hitler, made decisions like Holocausts. That definitely leads to instability in society.

And even if humans are rational, they still need a certain level of education to be able to make the right decisions. Evidence for this is obvious. Just compare any Tom, Dick or Harry on the streets, with an academic. Who is able to make the better decision? Who is better-informed, better equipped to analyse and weigh his options? I think we all know the answer.

Democracy assumes that its people have this education. However, a vast majority of the world together are living under a dollar a day. With barely enough to put food on their tables, and a roof over their heads, are they still capable of receiving an education? And not just any education, but it has to be sufficient education to allow them to take part in policy and law making. This is precisely what a democracy does, equating the common laymen to lawyers and politicians. Thus, wrong national decisions are presumably made, instability is caused.

Now, we move on to the assumption on participation. A democracy assumes that its people will participate in 100% in every referendum and vote it has. For a direct democracy, it is evidently impossible. Switzerland is such an example. It holds numerous votes, but the average participation rate is a mere 40%. Even if, we take an ideal situation, that all 40% of an entire nation agrees entirely, which is impossible, it is still unable to form a true majority. It is still a largely inaccurate representation of the people. This defeats the entire purpose of democracy.

In a democratic society where 100% of the people are supposed to make decisions for the entire society, any lesser percentage of people is unable to still act in the best interests of society. This is the crux of a democracy, without which, democracy does not stand. Thus, we have the formation of pseudo democracies, in which even if stability is created, it is still not a democracy and thus, opposes the statement.

Finally, although I talked about how the people’s power to re-elect its government creates stability, it can also do the opposite. Unlike a dictatorship, where the ruler stays in power for long periods of time, in a democracy, the ruling body can change much more frequently, depending on the outcome of the votes. Now, each new ruling body will have a different set of ideologies and ideals, and these new sets of ideas will be implemented nationwide. Comparing the two, would a country with a fixed set of ideals for a few decades be more stable, or would one which changes its ideals at every whim and fancy be more stable? Examining one of the mentioned criteria for stability, a stable society is one that is resistant to drastic change. The former is definitely more stable.

Thus, we see that democracy is not as pretty as it is painted out to be. Its fundamental principles are contradicted by itself. While it proclaims to promote virtues like equality, freedom and fairness, it submits its minority to unfair injustice and oppression. While re-electing may create stability, it can easily create instability as well. Democracy is chockfull with assumptions, on which it rests it entire system upon. These weak pillars can easily be torn down, and when they do, democracy falls with it. Humans may not be rational beings, participants in democracy may not be educated enough to make the right decisions and not every one in a democracy will participate in votes.

Thus, I conclude by disagreeing to a large extent that democracy creates stability in society.