In my opinion, democracy does not create stability in a society.
“Democracy” is defined as a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. For the purposes of this blog entry, only a system in which the exercise of political sovereignty by the people is practically possible and not merely theoretically allowed is classified under democracy. Hence, the Juche system in North Korea and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” under the Soviet Union, both of which theoretically allow for elections and free opinion but crack down on differing opinions “dangerous to the state”, would not be classified under democracy. Similarly, the system of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” in place in the People’s Republic of China, which allows for free elections at the village and township level as well as the existence of “democratic parties” but awards powers to the Communist Party of China based on the constitution, would not be classified. Democracy can take a variety of forms, including representative and direct democracy.
Society is defined as a grouping of individuals, which may have distinctive culture and institutions, characterized by common interests. For the purposes of this blog entry, society is further limited to individuals who coexist in a single political entity and have a vested interest in its welfare. Hence, the “American society” would encompass all individuals who coexist in the Federation of the United States of America, namely all local and overseas citizens as well as non-citizens who have a vested interest in the welfare, such as permanent residents.
Stability, a term which is inherently broad, is defined in this blog as a state of non-tension, or a state in which the society achieves a high level of peace and national security. Note that the definition of stability does not include the absolute lack of dissent, which would be detrimental to the society’s development. Even so, an overly large amount of dissent would lead to detrimental social tension in the society.
Stability in a society often seems to come after democracy or democratic reform is introduced. Indeed, the most stable and well-developed nations in the world today, namely the United States and the United Kingdom are democracies. Some also believe that Muslim militarism can be checked in the Middle East using democracy. However, democracy may also generate instability in many situations, such as when there is a significant minority, or when the individuals in a society are insufficiently educated. Below are some ways in which democracy introduces instability into societies.
Firstly, the electorate or participants of the democratic process may be insufficiently well-informed or educated to make sound, rational decisions of matters of national importance. One of the best examples of this flaw would be in certain newly-independent African nations in the 1950s and 1960s. The low literacy rate and low education rate, leading to a low awareness of the importance of their vote and the concept of democracy, caused many people to vote based on herd instinct, or based on populist policies advocated by the leaders. The latter was also especially true in post-independence Sri Lanka, when Solomon Bandaranaike used populist “Sinhalese nationalist” policies, which were later found by many to be detrimental to national development, to garner the votes of Sinhalese who were insufficiently farsighted to make reasoned decisions. When the electorate votes by herd instinct or in an otherwise unreasonable manner, this usually leads to policies that may benefit one party only or benefit all parties in the short term only. In addition, this allows the leaders to take advantage of the population at the expense of the welfare of the individual and the society as a whole. Hence, societal stability may be compromised.
Secondly, there is the possibility that the interests of a minority are compromised because they are unable to influence the majority opinion on a certain issue or policy. These minorities could include racial or religious groups, or even people with particular interests, and the minority could be caused by a mixture of factors, not just numerical minority. An example would be that of aboriginal rights in Australia, where aborigines can be considered in a minority or a disadvantageous position due to historical imbalances in many areas including education and economic development, and hence being less able to make apparent their problems or interests. Some allege that white Australians, having more economic and political power, have not given aboriginal issues sufficient intention simply because it is not in their interest to do so and also because they can do so without losing their majority. Even though this lack of attention could have been democratically agreed upon, it is detrimental to the stability of society as a whole. Therefore, democracy does not create stability in societies where there is a tyranny of majority, especially if the minority is significant.
In addition, there are other manners in which societal stability can be achieved, such as transparent governance and practical policy-making, which results in policies beneficial to both the welfare of the society and that of the individual, therefore leading to societal stability. This need not exist with democracy. We need look no further than our own sunny island for a prime example. With the People’s Action Party having been in power since 1959, Singapore has been accused by academics worldwide of being a “phobocracy”, a nanny state, a soft authoritarian regime or even an Empire led by the Lee Dynasty, which comprises our first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and his son, the current (third) Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. However, Singapore was able to weather the 1998 Asian financial crisis as neighbours Indonesia and Thailand crumbled, a testament to the economic stability of our island nation. In addition, our crime rate is one of the lowest in the world, and poverty in Singapore is virtually eliminated, as even the poorest of the poor have substantial equity in the form of their government flat, a result of our Home Ownership Scheme. Even though our nation has effectively been a uniparty state since internal self-government, our leaders do not engage in severe political oppression against a certain group or against the people in general. This is possible through judicious selection of capable representatives of the people and prudent management, not through democracy.
In conclusion, while stability in a society often comes after the introduction of democracy, it is more often due to other factors, as shown by the examples in which the other factors have been able to create a stable society in the absence of true democracy. Conversely, democracy has actually been shown to create instability in a society if misused, or if the preconditions for the effective implementation of democracy, such as the education and awareness of the masses, are absent. Therefore, democracy does not create stability in a society.
