Democracy promotes stability (English Argumentative Essay)

Democracy is a system of governance that aims to represent and execute the will of the people. Typically, democracies have several identifying institutions such as a constitution, legislative council, elections, free media and independent judiciary which are in charge of executing the constitution.

By stability, we will use the criterion of equally representing people's viewpoints, as only when there is a near equal representation of all the people's views can there truly be stability.

Democracy in its essence means “people power”, coming from the Greek words “demos” and “kratos”, “demos” meaning "people," and “kratos” meaning "rule". In Athens, the founding place of democracy, all discussion took place in the open on a hillside. The citizens heard every word spoken during these discussions and then, they debated among themselves what action to take. Each citizen, from the poorest beggars to the richest merchants of the time, heard and contributed to every argument with the same importance as the most experienced political leader. Everyone knew that the issues involved the security of the city and its empire, a question of war and peace; if the result should be war, the citizens themselves would do the fighting. That is truly democracy, that is truly representing and executing the will of the people, which are the main aims of democracy.

However, that was democracy. What we have called democracy in this country never came anywhere near what Athens had. Let’s look at what democracy is in today’s world. Today, in the world’s supposedly most democratic nation, the US, we have a certain political leader, launching regiment after regiment of soldiers to the slaughter house in Iraq, while parents beg him to stop the mindless massacre of American people. Ironically though, the number of people that have been killed in the Iraq war have exceeded the Americans killed in the World Trade Center terrorist attack.

The principle tenets of democracy are that everyone must be represented, that everyone must get a say, no matter how small, in how the government is run and the decisions made. Today’s democracies appears to achieve these aims, by giving everyone a vote, and a say, but I will show you how the process of voting, which is the principle method with which democracy strives to fulfill its aims, instead deprives people of representations, and runs against the ideals of Democracy itself. This, by the above criterion, would lead to social instability.

When democracy aims to execute the “will of the people” through voting, it actually is executing the will of the majority of the people. As we do not live in a utopian world, people have different views and hence not everyone can agree on the same thing. Everything would be fine, so long as everyone gets a say and representation, but by carrying out the will of the majority, democracy effectively deprives the minority of their representation, undermining its own core principle of equal representation for everybody. Why is this so? Humans are naturally ego-centric in their thinking, hence the populace can most probably will be biased against certain groups of people (for example the African-Americans in America in pre-1965.

Through majority rule, these people can thus call for racist and biased action against the people who they consider inferior to themselves within a country or organization, say ethnic minorities or members of a particular religion.

Just look at the “White Australia” policy, where the deportation of thousands of Melenesian people out of Australia took place under the guise of strengthening racial homogeneity, or the USA’s racial discrimination pre-1965 against the African-Americans, where just because of their skin colour, they were discriminated and prejudiced against by a democratic society. Is the will of this minority truly being represented in these cases?

Do we dare think for even one second, that the African-Americans actually wanted to be legally discriminated against by the Jim Crow Laws from 1876 to 1965? Due to these laws, public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, were required to have separate facilities for whites and African-Americans. Are they supposed to submit to this tyrannical majority all because they have the “supposed” misfortune to be born as a member of a racial minority? Last but not least, can we really say that democracy has brought about ample stability in these countries?

No to all the above.

Democracy promotes stability (Opposing)

By Moses:

Now for my third and final point on how democracy promotes instability: Masses of people making decisions can and will be manipulated for the good of society by the governement, and this will cause widespread unhappiness and instability.

Proper and effective must come from above and not from below, or from the people. The people as a mass are capable of being manipulated, and are unlikely to possess skills or training in confronting problems a state might face. As such, expecting them to elect the ‘best tools for the job’ is unrealistic. I am not saying that they are incapable of making the right decision, but the propensity for mistakes happening is high.

The Government from above can see, by virtue of its position and advantages, what is better for the people than the people can. For example, the abolition of the death penalty was at first deeply unpopular with the British public when it was pushed through by the government, but is now broadly supported as correct and humane.

Hence, Democracy, which advocates leadership through the power of the people, will not promote stability.

Please feel free to comment. Critical feedback is most welcome (:

Democracy promotes stability (Opposing)

By Moses,

Now for my second point: Democracy's checks and balances also do not serve their purposes effectively, and when they do, they violate on of Democracy's key tenets.

On the surface, democracies have many checks and balances to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but effectively, they only have one: The Constitution, where the basic tenets of the laws are set down. However, there are two problems with the Constitution. Firstly, any laws that are laid down preventing discrimination against ethnic minorities or other religions may not be effective, as much of this discrimination comes in more subtle forms, such as housing or land reforms not overtly aimed at, yet that adversely affect certain groups of people, like how the Indians in Brazil were affected by subsidies for cattle ranchers. Furthermore, laws voted in by the majority may only adversely affect a certain class of people, usually those living below the poverty line. It is hard to word the constitution to block such laws, but if a democracy does so, it brings us on to our second problem with the constitution.

Now, the only way to stop laws such as the ones I have highlighted above from being passed is to word the constitution very rigidly. But by doing so, you are REMOVING the majority’s representation. These are the people who WANT to oppress various minorities, but the wording of the constitution does not allow them to do so, and thus “democracy” removes their say, violating another one of it’s own core principles, which is to “execute the will of the people” regardless whether they are right or wrong. But if they allow the majority to be represented and oppress minorities, they are effectively subjugating the minority to the tyranny of the majority, violating their representation. This is not democracy, this is not a fair and equal representation of everybody, this is in fact, a vicious cycle of oppression.

As you can see, I have shown you today, how democracy in today’s world, though attempting to give everyone a fair representation, is actually depriving society of equal representation. The most basic tenets of democracy, namely the Constitution and legislative council, have shown throughout history how their presence has robbed both the minority and majority groups of fair representation. Because democracy is unable to provide society with equal representation, and that this in itself will promote instability, hence democracy cannot promote stability.

Please comment on this. Critical feedback is welcome (:

Democracy promotes stability (Opposing)

Democracy promotes stability.

By Moses:

To start off the discussion, I will lay down some basic definitions of democracy and what we mean by stability.

Democracy is a system of governance that aims to represent and execute the will of the people. Typically, democracies have several identifying institutions such as a constitution, legislative council, elections, free media and independent judiciary which are in charge of executing the constitution.

By stability, we will use the criterion of equally representing people's viewpoints, as only when there is a near equal representation of all the people's views can there truly be stability.

I do not agree with this statement. For my first argument: Democracy is unsustainable, and oppresses the minority.

The principle tenets of democracy are that everyone must be represented, that everyone must get a say, no matter how small, in how the government is run and the decisions made. Today’s democracies appears to achieve these aims, by giving everyone a vote, and a say, but today, I will show you why the process of voting, which is the principle method with which democracy strives to fulfill its aims, instead deprives people of representations, and runs against the ideals of Democracy itself.

When democracy aims to execute the “will of the people” through voting, it actually is executing the will of the majority of the people. We of the proposition accept that, as we do not live in a utopian world, people have different views and hence not everyone can agree on the same thing, and to propose that would be altruistic. Everything would be fine, so long as everyone gets a say and representation, but by carrying out the will of the majority, democracy effectively deprives the minority of their representation, undermining its own core principle of equal representation for everybody. Why is this so? Humans are naturally ego-centric in their thinking, hence the populace can most probably will be biased against certain groups of people (for example the African-Americans in America in pre-1965. Through majority rule, these people can thus call for racist and biased action against the people who they consider inferior to themselves within a country or organization, say ethnic minorities or members of a particular religion. Just look at the “White Australia” policy, where the deportation of thousands of Melenesian people out of Australia took place under the guise of strengthening racial homogeneity, or the USA’s racial discrimination pre-1965 against the African-Americans, where just because of their skin colour, they were discriminated and prejudiced against by a democratic society. Is the will of the majority being represented here? Does anyone think for even one second, that the African-Americans actually wanted to be legally discriminated against by the Jim Crow Laws from 1876 to 1965? Due to these laws, public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, were required to have separate facilities for whites and African-Americans. Are they supposed to submit to this tyrannical majority all because they have the “supposed” misfortune to be born as a member of a racial minority?

As you can see, democracy is inherently unstable and unsustainable. If this stands, then it follows that the concept it stands for, stability through equal representation, should also fall. Hence, I feel that democracy does not promote stability.

Please voice your opinions on this issue. Critical response is welcome (: