How is stability measured? There are 3 types of stability, namely political stability, economic stability, and social stability. Political stability involves the political process being organised smoothly and peacefully, without causing violent conflict between political factions. Economic stability involves the economy of the state being stable, smooth and progressive. Social stability involves the maintenance of peace and harmony within the society.
Firstly, we shall analyse the negative impact of democracy on stability within a state. Let us first analyse the case of Pakistan. Pakistan gained independence in 1947, and has experienced countless turmoil, despite the presence of democracy. Governments have been overthrown by the military on a few occasions, on the grounds that the democratic government is inefficient, and the 2007 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto underlines the political instability of Pakistan. Past democratically-elected governments have also failed to improve the economy of Pakistan. In the decade before the end of the last millennium, the government failed to prevent the economic state of the country from worsening, and it accumulated in Pervez Musharraf launching a coup and overthrowing the government. I feel that democracy has not only failed to bring stability in Pakistan, it is perhaps the root of the instability there.
Another case is Indonesia. Indonesia has an abundance of natural resources, is the largest Muslim nation in the world, is made up of thousands of islands, yet only has a gross domestic product of less than US$2000, which is low compared to Singapore which lacks natural resources, with only its people to count on. And the cause of this? Obviously the government of Indonesia. Indonesia has a vibrant democracy, with many political parties representing various interests. But the policies and passiveness of successive governments has resulted in Indonesia becoming unstable, from students rioting over increasing oil prices, to massive corruption, to the widening rich-poor gap, to terrorist threats from its own citizens. I feel that democracy has brought in ineffective governments that are unable to lead Indonesia to stability and progress, but perhaps it is also due to the mindsets of the people that pressure the government into refraining from making the right decisions.
Now lets look on the brighter side and analyse the positive impact of democracy on stability. In the case of India, it has experienced relative stability. India gained independence in 1947 and was declared a republic in 1950. Ever since, India has gone through peaceful democratic elections, and the only political instability it has experienced is unsteady alliances among the different parties that form India's political landscape, and the landscape actually reflects the healthy state of India's democracy. India is fast rising as the “call centre” of the world, with major companies outsourcing most of their non-crucial telephone customer service work to India's companies that specialises in such work. India's Tata Group has emerged as a powerful conglomerate, with an annual revenue that amounts to billions. But despite India's economic growth, a quarter of the populations lives in poverty. This can directly cause social instability, and has already indirectly caused growing political instability, in the case of a Maoist insurgency known as the Naxalite movement.
Two other examples are Singapore and Russia. Both have major differences, but both share common characteristics, that they have a fast growing economy, and that their political landscapes are dominated by one major party (United Russia in Russia's case, People's Action Party in Singapore's case), with a handful of smaller political parties. This is known as procedural democracy, and it being true democracy is debatable. But the fact is that the people elected them in, and that they have brought stability to their nations, politically, economically and socially. Russia had only come out of the collapsed of the Soviet Union just a decade before, when Vladimir Putin came into power in Russia. Yet he has single-handedly rescued Russia from economic disaster. Singapore had just experienced political, economic and social turmoil when it gained independence in 1965, but the elected PAP government led Singapore towards becoming a modern nation, with world-class housing, education, and infrastructure. Yet it has been criticised time and again for restricting press freedom in Singapore, for dominating the local political scene, and its leaders for using libel and defamation suits to force prominent political opposition figures into bankruptcy, therefore forcing them out of the political arena, and making it hard to re-enter. I guess perhaps some aspects of democracy have to be sacrificed sometimes, in order to ensure progress.
In conclusion, whether or not democracy creates stability in a society is a contentious issue, due to varying outcomes of different democratic states. But in my opinion, whether or not democracy creates stability in a society is very much dependent on the human element involved in it, particularly the citizens (who are the ones voting), and the leaders that are elected. It is because the citizens are the ones that decide the leaders, and the leaders and governments are the ones making the decisions, and ultimately their decisions will determine whether society becomes more stable or unstable. I also feel that the mindsets of the people will also determine whether democracy will bring about stability, because if they do not follow the democratic process, and decide to resort to other means such as violence, democracy will be unable to bring about stability.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment