“Democracy creates stability in society.”

I would say that this statement is largely true, and will discuss this reasoning in the course of this essay. To start, we must first define the terms within this statement. “Democracy” refers to a state of government where political sovereignty is held by the people, who either exercise it directly in the decision-making process or elect representatives. By “society”, we refer to the general population within the country in which this democracy takes place. Lastly, “stability” means that the people are content politically, socially and economically and as such will not raise protests over issues concerning these areas. I will be basing my argument on the following points: Firstly, democracy ensures that the common man has a choice. Secondly, democracy allows a better standard of living. Thirdly, democracy promotes foreign relations.

As my first point, I say that democracy ensures that the common man has a choice. This means that the everyman has the right to make his own decisions and play an active role in developing the future of his country. Obviously, the people believe that they themselves should know what is best for their country. By letting them make this choice, democracy satisfies them and makes them content. For example, in Myanmar, people protested vigorously because the junta did not allow them to have any say while making the decisions. This led people to campaign for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.

In democracy, the people are able to take matters into their own hands, instead of just feebly protesting the decisions made by the government which they feel are wrong. Although this is most apparent in direct democracy, where the people get to vote during each and every decision, this is also true for representative democracy. Voters get to select a candidate whose policies they agree with, so they can be assured that the choices their representative makes are correct, in their opinion. All of this means that socially, society will be stable because of the contentment people experience in making their own choices.

Secondly, democracy creates better standards of living for all the people, in an economic sense. Democracies have a free market, where the people themselves regulate the economy, and the government imposes little control over the prices or market forces. This generally means that there are fewer taxes, as compared to other political systems like totalitarianism, and would mean that the people can prosper. In an oligarchy or autocracy, for example, there is a significant divide between the ruling classes and the so-called plebians, who suffer from this system. This definitely will not promote stability, for the disparity would surely draw much ire from the citizens.

Some might bring up the idea of communism, where the people share all possessions and wealth, ensuring that there is little disparity. In theory, this sounds good, but if we turn to nations such as Soviet Russia, we can see that it did not work. The government heavily regulated the prices of resources and ended up increasing inflation, to the point where the economy was in danger of collapsing. Thus, from these examples we can see that democracy, in which people can make their own economic choices, promotes economic stability as well.

Thirdly, democracy promotes foreign relations as well. Cynical as it may seem, democracy indeed allows a country to have better foreign ties, especially with world superpowers such as the United States of America. In fact, the United States is so keen on democracy that they actively try to “convert” other, non-democratic nations to their political system. We also know that it has different, better foreign policies for countries which practice democracy, and is more likely to give foreign aid to a democratic country. In fact, one interesting example would be the way “democracy” and its derivatives are used in the names of countries. North Korea, though clearly a dictatorship under Kim Jong Il, calls itself the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea”. It lives under a façade of democracy in order to improve relations, though this did not work. Thus, democracy gives a country an advantage in its ties and relations with other countries, and allows it political stability.

However, there are still problems with the concept of democracy, and some criticism must be made. Firstly, democracy as a process is inefficient, especially direct democracy. If there is a vote taken every time a decision has to be made, this would surely delay the process and take up time. Even if representatives are used, some time would still be needed to debate the issue in Parliament among the government and opposition members. In a dictatorship, for example, the dictator can instantly pass a bill without needing to consult anyone. This ensures efficiency, which is important in the running of a country.

Secondly, majority rule in a democracy sometimes leads to marginalization of the minority of the people. If the people decide to push a bill which is disadvantageous to a minority group, and then vote to pass it, they could successfully marginalize this group. It would be a case of the strong bullying the weak, because it can wield greater political clout. This detracts from social stability.

Thirdly, and perhaps most relevant would be the fact that the common man may not know what is best for himself. A normal man on the street might not be perceptive or politically aware enough to make a decision for his country, or choose the best representative to make these kinds of decisions. It could be argued that decision-making should be left to experts in the respective fields, such as politics and economics, for they know what is best for the country in their fields.

I shall address these criticisms point by point. To the first point, that democracy is inefficient, this is untrue. With the advent of technology, the government can streamline the voting process. An example of this would be in Switzerland, where citizens can take part in polls online. This still ensures that the country is not bogged down by its own decision making process.

To the second point, there are always safeguards against this in all nations. Normally, this would be in the constitution upon which the nation is founded, such as in the United States of America. It states that “every man has the right to pursue his own happiness”, meaning that every individual has rights which cannot be infringed on. The constitution, or any similar document, ensures this social stability.

To the last point, this problem is easily resolved in representative democracy. If the people do not make their decisions directly, they can always elect a representative to make their decisions for them, to the best of their interests. Detractors might ask, “What if the people do not know which representative is best for them?” To this I answer that the leaders of their country always have a limited term in which they can serve in office, so they can always re-elect a different representative to power if they are unsatisfied with their current one. In direct democracy, experts on their fields could be brought in to advise the public before they make a decision, so that the public will know the advantages and disadvantages of each choice they are making. Additionally, as stated before, letting the people choose actually contributes to the stability of the nation as well.

In conclusion, we can see that democracy does indeed create stability in society, in terms of political, economic and social factors, and the advantages it offers far outweigh its disadvantages, if there are any at all.