Does Democracy create stability in a society? With just a cursory glance at the current global state of affairs, the answer yes looms right in front of us- UN advocates Democracy as the ideal method of governance, and it has been adopted as the preferred system by most nations, notably by stable ones such as US, UK and France (just to name a few). However, looking beyond this image of bliss, three key questions are raised. Firstly can all this stability achieved be attributed to the system of Democracy itself? In other words, is it the credit of Democracy for conjuring stability out of thin air? Or does it merely provide the framework for it? Secondly, does Democracy guarantee unconditional stability? To put it simply, are all democracies stable?
Before plunging into this vast ocean of intrigue as to whether or not Democracy creates stability, it is essential to obtain a clearer understanding of the nature of stability. For the purposes of this essay, we shall look only into Social stability. It can be distinguished into this two levels. The first one is tangible, concrete stability. It is a state of basic financial well-being, with presence of necessities and living conditions. Although this overlaps with economic stability, it has a shared sphere of influence with society, and cannot be seen as a distinct entity.
Before plunging into this vast ocean of intrigue as to whether or not Democracy creates stability, it is essential to obtain a clearer understanding of the nature of stability. For the purposes of this essay, we shall look only into Social stability. It can be distinguished into this two levels. The first one is tangible, concrete stability. It is a state of basic financial well-being, with presence of necessities and living conditions. Although this overlaps with economic stability, it has a shared sphere of influence with society, and cannot be seen as a distinct entity.
Where poverty and pestilence are rife, there would be social strife.
The second level of stability would be homogeneity in ideals and peaceful co-existence among groups of people. Thus, according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, the first level of stability falls under the primary category of essential physiological requirements, whereas the second level of stability is found at the higher, more abstract realm of psychological needs.
Therefore, if Democracy is to create stability, it has to ensure the presence of both these levels of stability, and not one at the expense of the other. We shall use this to evaluate the success of Democracy in creating stability.
How does Democracy create stability? Let’s examine the principle foundations of the system. Also known as the people government, it aims to provide average citizens with a say in the political scene, and empowers them with the choice to elect their favoured party which represents their best interests. Hence they are allowed to indicate and vindicate their own rights. This also promotes equality among all human beings, regardless of social or economic standing. By the highly prescribed moral theory of Utilitarianism, it creates greatest good for greatest number. It attempts to forge a national path that everyone can relate to. In so doing, it caters to the higher ego needs of the people and guarantees the second level of social stability (refer above).
Furthermore, it enables flexibility in which there is room for healthy, objective debate and criticism, with the betterment of society in mind. Consequently, citizens are able to choose for themselves what they feel is the most efficient party, and even if it fails to reach the mark in terms of concrete outcomes, they would soon have the option of electing a new party. This takes care of the tangible stability. Thus, by principle, a democracy effectively guarantees both levels of stability by satisfying the vital needs of its people. This strongly corroborates with Dr. Adrian White’s study on ‘The Happiest Place on Earth’, which revealed Denmark, Switzerland and USA, undeniably democratic nations, to be emerging at the pinnacle in terms of Education, Economic prosperity and Healthcare.
Yet, there is abundant evidence of democratic instability as well. Some of these are due to principle flaws in the Democracy, while others are due to failures in upholding the democracy rather than in the democracy itself.
The very fundamentals of Democracy clash with those of complete societal stability. The philosophy of equality and objective choice is all fair and well, but how far does this idealistic light penetrate? This rosy picture often applies only to the voting process of democracy. Many parties can take the stage and try their hands at wooing the people, but eventually only one party can rule. Similarly, every citizen can be entitled to voting slips and his free will in filling them, but in due course only a group of citizens can have their wishes granted. Thus at the end of the day, it is ultimately just one stream of thought from the vast ocean of ideals that is going to be implemented. Even if it may be the most preferred, there are likely to be conflicting principles and notions held by others, which cannot be fulfilled. Thus, homogeneity in ideals is often greatly compromised in a Democracy, and this causes instability.
This is aptly reflected in recent history by India, a veteran democracy. In the early 1990s, the Indian National Congress was voted in to rule India. However, groups of people grew increasingly annoyed of its inefficient economic policies and methods of governance. There were demonstrations and protests by private industrialists, and government buildings had to be shut down. This itself was instability. As if this wasn’t enough, another party was voted in, and then was voted out for the INC again for conflicting ideals. This choice of changing the party whenever convenient was meant to lend flexibility to the governing of the nation. Ironically, though, it leaves the nation in a state of tatters, as the different parties leave behind differing legacies and policies, which have to be reformed at every term. Thus, this lack of homogeneity in ideals, both between the people and the parties, which is an essential part of Democracy, results in instability.
Furthermore, will a party elected by free votes necessarily act moral and upright? The truth is, the need to be elected by the majority often forces corruption in the ruling party. This can be observed in the form of Populist Policies and tendencies. In other words, in a democracy, the government may be swayed towards being biased towards the masses and discriminating against the elites, and committing immoral and unfair actions. Not only is this negative on its own, these actions would result in further conflict as the oppressed people are likely to fight back, thus resulting in instability. Social instability also results when the democracy gets skewed. There is a catch in the idealistic impression of democracy, that its people are capable of making informed choices. A democracy only comes to life when its average people are politically conscious and make sound, responsible decisions. In poor 3rd or 2nd world nations, citizens are vastly illiterate and lack any political awareness, and vote for parties based on outward shows and catchy short term offers, rather than with their long-term interests in mind. For example, in South America, political parties offer free bags of rice and television sets in return for votes, and the people pay more attention to these than the policies. As a result, they find that the government does not cater to their needs, and there is unrest and instability. Such a failure to keep with the tenets of true democracy renders nations unstable, and proves the delicate balance of stability that democracy hangs on.
Therefore, if Democracy is to create stability, it has to ensure the presence of both these levels of stability, and not one at the expense of the other. We shall use this to evaluate the success of Democracy in creating stability.
How does Democracy create stability? Let’s examine the principle foundations of the system. Also known as the people government, it aims to provide average citizens with a say in the political scene, and empowers them with the choice to elect their favoured party which represents their best interests. Hence they are allowed to indicate and vindicate their own rights. This also promotes equality among all human beings, regardless of social or economic standing. By the highly prescribed moral theory of Utilitarianism, it creates greatest good for greatest number. It attempts to forge a national path that everyone can relate to. In so doing, it caters to the higher ego needs of the people and guarantees the second level of social stability (refer above).
Furthermore, it enables flexibility in which there is room for healthy, objective debate and criticism, with the betterment of society in mind. Consequently, citizens are able to choose for themselves what they feel is the most efficient party, and even if it fails to reach the mark in terms of concrete outcomes, they would soon have the option of electing a new party. This takes care of the tangible stability. Thus, by principle, a democracy effectively guarantees both levels of stability by satisfying the vital needs of its people. This strongly corroborates with Dr. Adrian White’s study on ‘The Happiest Place on Earth’, which revealed Denmark, Switzerland and USA, undeniably democratic nations, to be emerging at the pinnacle in terms of Education, Economic prosperity and Healthcare.
Yet, there is abundant evidence of democratic instability as well. Some of these are due to principle flaws in the Democracy, while others are due to failures in upholding the democracy rather than in the democracy itself.
The very fundamentals of Democracy clash with those of complete societal stability. The philosophy of equality and objective choice is all fair and well, but how far does this idealistic light penetrate? This rosy picture often applies only to the voting process of democracy. Many parties can take the stage and try their hands at wooing the people, but eventually only one party can rule. Similarly, every citizen can be entitled to voting slips and his free will in filling them, but in due course only a group of citizens can have their wishes granted. Thus at the end of the day, it is ultimately just one stream of thought from the vast ocean of ideals that is going to be implemented. Even if it may be the most preferred, there are likely to be conflicting principles and notions held by others, which cannot be fulfilled. Thus, homogeneity in ideals is often greatly compromised in a Democracy, and this causes instability.
This is aptly reflected in recent history by India, a veteran democracy. In the early 1990s, the Indian National Congress was voted in to rule India. However, groups of people grew increasingly annoyed of its inefficient economic policies and methods of governance. There were demonstrations and protests by private industrialists, and government buildings had to be shut down. This itself was instability. As if this wasn’t enough, another party was voted in, and then was voted out for the INC again for conflicting ideals. This choice of changing the party whenever convenient was meant to lend flexibility to the governing of the nation. Ironically, though, it leaves the nation in a state of tatters, as the different parties leave behind differing legacies and policies, which have to be reformed at every term. Thus, this lack of homogeneity in ideals, both between the people and the parties, which is an essential part of Democracy, results in instability.
Furthermore, will a party elected by free votes necessarily act moral and upright? The truth is, the need to be elected by the majority often forces corruption in the ruling party. This can be observed in the form of Populist Policies and tendencies. In other words, in a democracy, the government may be swayed towards being biased towards the masses and discriminating against the elites, and committing immoral and unfair actions. Not only is this negative on its own, these actions would result in further conflict as the oppressed people are likely to fight back, thus resulting in instability. Social instability also results when the democracy gets skewed. There is a catch in the idealistic impression of democracy, that its people are capable of making informed choices. A democracy only comes to life when its average people are politically conscious and make sound, responsible decisions. In poor 3rd or 2nd world nations, citizens are vastly illiterate and lack any political awareness, and vote for parties based on outward shows and catchy short term offers, rather than with their long-term interests in mind. For example, in South America, political parties offer free bags of rice and television sets in return for votes, and the people pay more attention to these than the policies. As a result, they find that the government does not cater to their needs, and there is unrest and instability. Such a failure to keep with the tenets of true democracy renders nations unstable, and proves the delicate balance of stability that democracy hangs on.
Interestingly, European democracies tend to be better off than their Asian and South American counterparts. The political ideology is the same, but the outcome is vastly different. Why? Based on recent surveys, citizens of European nations are more cohesive and transcend racial boundaries for Economic development, as compared to the residents of multi-cultural Asian societies, who tend to compete among one another for cultural identity. They share a similar modern global outlook. Perhaps, that enables them to share homogeneity in ideals and better milk the democratic cow for its benefits of overall productivity and stability.
In conclusion, we have seen both stable and unstable democracies. So why is it that certain democracies are stable while others are not? The answer lies in the fact that there are several factors to stability other than the political ideology of democracy itself. In other words, my stand is that Democracy in itself does not create stability; it lays a strong foundation for building the skyscraper that is stability. The qualities of the populace, the socioeconomic context, the strength of the national fabric, are the cement and building blocks of this ‘skyscraper’. If they are substandard, the ‘skyscraper’ crumbles, and there goes the stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment