I shall be addressing Suphasak's point about the economic successes of democracy as opposed to other political systems. While I agree that not all democracies have perfect, or even stable economies, there is certainly a greater likelihood for a nation to have economic success if it is democratic. As I have stated in my essay, this would be due to several virtues of democracy, such as the greater amount of support it gets from world superpowers. If you would compare a different political system, such as communism, you would find a distinct gap in the per capita incomes of citizens. For example, in the old USSR, often considered to be the most "perfect" epitome of Communism, citizens earned far less than other democracies of the day, such as the United States.
Also, Suphasak comments on the rich-poor divide. Yes, although it is possible that democracies may suffer from this problem, but if you consider the alternative you would find other political systems suffer from this to an even greater degree! In an country ruled by aristocrats or a tyrant, it is obvious that the oligarchy would inherently fare much better than the plebians, and compared to this, democracy is clearly not so blatant. Additionally, as stated before, most democracies have constitutions which clearly aim to prevent abuse of any one group of people- including the poor. It is likely that a democratic country would have checks and balances to protect the economically disadvantaged, because clearly, it depends on the power of the people.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Disagreement
Anurak has already written down the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, and I agree with his argument to a large extent.
However, there is a point which I will like to point out in his essay that I disagree with.
Anurak has stated that 'democracy creates better standards of living for all the people'. This statement is definitely not true. If democracy is really able to create better standards of living for all the people, then why are there still chaos and instability in a country that is democratic (eg. Thailand)? Even if it is in an economy sense, democracy is not able to create better standards of living for all the people. I agree that free markets are better as people are allowed to choose their own jobs and join labour unions. Moreover, if the government totally control the economy, then there tent to create dishonesty and corruption. Yet, there is a loop hole in the system of free market itself. In countries where great inequality of wealth exists (due to past discrimination or other unfair practices), the states should play a stronger role in them. If not, they poor will definitely be of disadvantages. For example, in Indonesia, the richer becomes richer, and the poorer becomes poorer. The phenomenon becomes a vicious cycle, unable the poor to get out of their social status. Therefore, even in economic sense, democracy fails to become a system which suits the need of all the people, and it is not even come close to a point where everyone's standard of living is better.
Pesonally, I feel that democracy as a system itself is able to create peace within a society. However, what make the system impossible to become as close as a 'utopia' state is because of external factors, such as tyranny of majority or corruption.
How to avoid all these complications?
However, there is a point which I will like to point out in his essay that I disagree with.
Anurak has stated that 'democracy creates better standards of living for all the people'. This statement is definitely not true. If democracy is really able to create better standards of living for all the people, then why are there still chaos and instability in a country that is democratic (eg. Thailand)? Even if it is in an economy sense, democracy is not able to create better standards of living for all the people. I agree that free markets are better as people are allowed to choose their own jobs and join labour unions. Moreover, if the government totally control the economy, then there tent to create dishonesty and corruption. Yet, there is a loop hole in the system of free market itself. In countries where great inequality of wealth exists (due to past discrimination or other unfair practices), the states should play a stronger role in them. If not, they poor will definitely be of disadvantages. For example, in Indonesia, the richer becomes richer, and the poorer becomes poorer. The phenomenon becomes a vicious cycle, unable the poor to get out of their social status. Therefore, even in economic sense, democracy fails to become a system which suits the need of all the people, and it is not even come close to a point where everyone's standard of living is better.
Pesonally, I feel that democracy as a system itself is able to create peace within a society. However, what make the system impossible to become as close as a 'utopia' state is because of external factors, such as tyranny of majority or corruption.
How to avoid all these complications?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)