Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Please excuse the previous post.
I understand it makes a lot of frivolous claims, but please note that it is written in a 500 word count restriction, and this prevents extensive elaboration of points. The above is solely for school education/assessment purpose. Please do not take personal offence.
Democracy - Meeting the essentials
With the people, for the people, by the people - where stands a chance for dispute? The fundamentals of a democracy respect and encompass equality, prosperity, social stability and freedom. And the past is its evidence, as is its promising future. These aims we strive allow little if any disputes within a country, as they meet basic needs and this on long term creates stability in a democracy.
Is it not true that the ultimate aim of a government is to establish peace, prosperity and felicity of its people? How is it so, then, that as per recent surveys, most of the worlds happiest countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland (in terms of health, safety and education) are all democratic?
But keeping studies aside, I argue that a democracy forms the most accountable form of government, for the power of government rests is the hands of people. Compare this to a dictatorship or any other governmental form, where the oligarchy needn’t fear any opposition consequence of fatal blunders? This is why Hitler prevailed with irrefutable and dauntless power, and could rule Germans despite many mistakes he made along the way.
If the government elected is corrupt or irresponsible, then the power to outvote it and correct it follies belongs to the people, as does the responsibility of using it wisely. This was seen in India, where the INC (Indian National Congress) was outvoted in 1996 for economic stagnation. An allegedly bigoted political body came in (BJP) that was then replaced in 2004 by INC again, which was determined to fuel the economy and improvise.
From the richest man to the poorest loafer, all exercise equal political power, an epitome of parity that even equivocating communist or socialist government fails to implement. Isn’t it ironic that USSR, a country that boasted economic and political equality for all actually achieved all this by compromising on the standards of both? The average citizen had no political power, and the per capita income of even Spain was actually triple that of USSR, the proclaimed epitome of successful dictatorship.
The past has seen exploitation, instability and downfall of democracies due to derelict enforcement of free and fair elections, which has caused countries like Pakistan and Mexico to experience retardation in progress and governance under a dictatorship by right, though they claim to bare a masquerade of ‘democracy’ for global acceptance. Why?
A democracy that respects people’s rights, liberty, and independence is the most stable form of government, as its policies and decisions are not polemic but neutralized in case of conflicting sub-bodies or opinions. When there is a satisfied population, there is lesser dispute and this evolves into a stable taxonomy. In long term basis, a stable democracy can propel a nation to prosperity. This is why event the most diverse democracy in the world, India, has been stable politically and effectively works like many others for the amelioration and happiness of its people, its patriarchs and partisans.
Is it not true that the ultimate aim of a government is to establish peace, prosperity and felicity of its people? How is it so, then, that as per recent surveys, most of the worlds happiest countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland (in terms of health, safety and education) are all democratic?
But keeping studies aside, I argue that a democracy forms the most accountable form of government, for the power of government rests is the hands of people. Compare this to a dictatorship or any other governmental form, where the oligarchy needn’t fear any opposition consequence of fatal blunders? This is why Hitler prevailed with irrefutable and dauntless power, and could rule Germans despite many mistakes he made along the way.
If the government elected is corrupt or irresponsible, then the power to outvote it and correct it follies belongs to the people, as does the responsibility of using it wisely. This was seen in India, where the INC (Indian National Congress) was outvoted in 1996 for economic stagnation. An allegedly bigoted political body came in (BJP) that was then replaced in 2004 by INC again, which was determined to fuel the economy and improvise.
From the richest man to the poorest loafer, all exercise equal political power, an epitome of parity that even equivocating communist or socialist government fails to implement. Isn’t it ironic that USSR, a country that boasted economic and political equality for all actually achieved all this by compromising on the standards of both? The average citizen had no political power, and the per capita income of even Spain was actually triple that of USSR, the proclaimed epitome of successful dictatorship.
The past has seen exploitation, instability and downfall of democracies due to derelict enforcement of free and fair elections, which has caused countries like Pakistan and Mexico to experience retardation in progress and governance under a dictatorship by right, though they claim to bare a masquerade of ‘democracy’ for global acceptance. Why?
A democracy that respects people’s rights, liberty, and independence is the most stable form of government, as its policies and decisions are not polemic but neutralized in case of conflicting sub-bodies or opinions. When there is a satisfied population, there is lesser dispute and this evolves into a stable taxonomy. In long term basis, a stable democracy can propel a nation to prosperity. This is why event the most diverse democracy in the world, India, has been stable politically and effectively works like many others for the amelioration and happiness of its people, its patriarchs and partisans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
