Does Democracy really create stability in a society?

Democracy is a form of political governance, and in the real world comes in many forms. In this commentary, democracy shall be defined as “a government elected by the people” (Oxford Dictionary). Stability too comes in different forms and I shall focus on social stability for this commentary.

Democracy allows expression by various groups, and when operated properly, allows for representative views and a basis for peaceful co-existence. It allows for buy-in and ownership of decisions. Yet, democracy, though used widely as forms of governance in countries, has its flaws. Though widely promoted as the ‘near perfect’ governing system, and recommended as the system of choice by the UN, it has its failures. Moreover, when it comes to stability, democracy is not the only factor that leads to it. There are many others which also affect stability in a society. Thus, I feel that democracy does not create stability in a society all the time.

One of democracy’s major flaws is its basis on two assumptions. One, that humans have the capacity to make the right and logical decisions (which leads to stability). Two, that humans can make their own decisions, representing themselves only, without influence from any other source. These assumptions make the whole idea of democracy doubtful.

For example, the chaos, fighting and social instability in the Sri Lankan civil war was created by a failed democracy. The Sinhalas had been the ‘lower’ race compared to the Tamils during British rule, despite being the majority. When the British left and Sri Lanka became independent, the Sinhalas voted in a Sinhala leader and supported many policies which greatly disadvantaged the Tamil population. This caused uproar among the Tamils and civil war broke out. The Sinhalas were blinded and influenced by the past and thus made decisions that affected the stability of the country. This clearly is an example the failure of democracy to create stability in a society.

It is true that stability can be obtained by making everyone happy. Some might argue that is more or less what democracy does, thus it creates stability. However, they fail to remember that democracy only satisfies the majority, and an unhappy minority can still cause instability, just as seen in the previous example.

The recent debacle in Thailand can also be explained by a failed democracy. Before Thaksin was voted in the second time, Thais already knew that the people in the south were unhappy with him. They too knew that it would certainly cause conflict if he was given a second term. However, the majority thought that voting him in was right, and thus they did, causing more conflict and social instability. Here, we can see the other assumption in action: that humans have the capacity to make the right decisions.

Clearly, democracy does not create stability per se. It depends on many other factors like the people, and the two assumptions made make the system weak and prone to instability in the given society.