Democracy & Stabiity - Which One??

Democracy creates stability in a state. What exactly is democracy? No one could correctly describe democracy as there is a great variety of description which depends on the perspective of people who describe it, the state adopting the system, and social state at the moment. Still, there’s similarity to any form of democracy: people have freedom to present ideas and people have access to power equally. I myself describe democracy as a political system where everyone can participate in reforming the country and have liberty that’s not constrained by the ruler. Next, is it true that democracy creates stability in a state? So far, some people say “yes” whilst the others say “no”. Several different cases show that exactly, democracy can create stability in a state or vice versa. I simply oppose the motion; I think democracy has created more instability rather than stability in a state/country.

Initially, Western countries are the ones practicing democracy, but lately, more and more countries, including most Eastern countries, have practiced or in some sense adapted the democracy. These two sides, East and West, practice a more or less different kind of democracy. The Western countries’ democracy is far more liberal than those of Eastern countries’ as the Eastern countries hold tightly to conventional tradition and beliefs. Nevertheless, in both cases democracy has several times created chaos and instability. Important aspects in democracy are representative, power to the people, election, political party, majority rule, and freedom for all.

Basically, by applying democracy, a country grants to every single one of its citizen
“power”. In so doing it as well tells the people that they have equal rights of freedom: of speech, of choice, to live, etc. We can already foretell just by this one principal that if democracy isn’t correctly executed, chaos and malfunction of government is inevitable, and it has affected several countries spread across the world.

Election can never be neglected if we’re talking about democracy since it’s such a crucial matter. As far as we have known, to obstruct the problem of uncontrolled movement of citizen due to their power, representative democracy is one the most popular method, and well, most of the time it works! But it doesn’t simply end like that. In representative system, there has to be one party/person to sit at the top position of the country but yet, that’s where the flaw lies. Why did I say so? Firstly, in a representative democracy, one will vote without knowing the exact “face” of the ruler-to-be. What they said in their campaign is the only thing they do know and it’s yet to known what they will do for the latter. Worse is when in their campaign they gave something to the people to pay for their vote – bribery in other word, which is quite commonly happen in several countries at the moment. As the country just blindly voices their choice in such a fatal occasion, the result for the country’s future might be severe. One case is when they actually vote for a dictator who if later come to power will grant the people pain and sufferings.

That’s almost all about it; all in all, democracy is all but another imperfect system. After all, no such thing in the world which is “perfect”. If there is one, it’s just a matter of time until truth reveals all the lies. Isn’t being perfect against the ‘law of the world’?