Does democracy create stability in a society?

Democracy has been considered by many to be one of the better forms of government in the world. Indeed, it is not difficult to see why this viewpoint is justified, as it generally ensures that the majority of the population are satisfied with the decisions made. However, does democracy really create stability in a society? I personally feel that while it can bring stability into a society, it depends on many factors within the society itself and is not a “silver bullet” that will automatically convert a war-torn, unstable country into a completely peaceful and stable one.

There are many different forms of democracy. Two of the main categories I will consider are direct democracy, where people directly vote for the policies to be put into effect (such as Switzerland), and representative democracy, where people vote for representatives who will debate and decide on the policies (such as the USA). Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Also, when referring to democracy, we will discard illiberal democracies, where people do not have true freedom to make decisions.

The general idea of democracy is that it is the majority view that is counted. Since it is impossible to please everyone, democracy ensures that the least amount of people will be unhappy, thus hopefully achieving stability. However, this brings up an inherent flaw in democracy. The minority can easily undermine the stability of a country by themselves. For example, in Sri Lanka, disagreements between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils led to much conflict and violence, resulting in an unstable society. This problem, though, can be mitigated in a number of ways. A well-written Constitution may be able to ensure that the views of the minority are respected. Also, the leaders of a country in representative democracy may be able to make good decisions that will not alienate the minority groups in a society. However, as I have said above, these are all factors that can bring about the success or failure of a democracy in bringing stability into a society.

Despite this shortcoming, in my opinion, democracy has many advantages over other forms of government, especially representative democracy. Consider a monarchy with a corrupt king. It is extremely difficult for the people to remove the king from power without causing instability within a country. However, in a democracy, it is trivial for the people to not vote in the leader for the next term of power, minimizing the harm that he can do to the country. This inherent feature of representative democracy means that decision makers within a country are pressured to achieve success for their country, thus making them accountable to the people. Also, another benefit of representative democracy is that it can mitigate the problems that a less educated population can bring to a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, if the people do not put much thought into the policies that they vote in, this can mean that policies that only appear good, but bring harm to the country can be voted in. However, when considering a representative democracy, when the MPs are voted in to make decisions for the country, they will generally put much more thought into what will benefit the country, partially because they are made accountable to the people and partially because it is a full-time job for them to do so.

Thus, I feel that democracy is fairly good at bringing stability to a society. However, it is not a perfect solution to everything. In my opinion, amongst the other factors, the most important of all for a democracy to succeed is the ability of the leaders to make the country feel united as one, thus eliminating the conflicts between the people that threaten to pull the society apart. Representative democracy is somewhat more suited than other political systems to achieve this, as the leaders chosen are likely to be liked by a majority of the population already. However, as long as this is achieved, any political system can bring stability to a country.