Does Democracy also spell for stability?

President George W. Bush rants about the importance of America as a beacon of Democracy, and declares war on Iraq. 10 countries have the word “Democratic” branded in bold on their names. It seems that the word has a reference to utility and stability. However, we must pause to ponder, is democracy really the oasis for stability, particularly social stability, in a society? I do agree that it does bring social stability, but it also has its limitations.

Democracy is defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” (Dictionary.com). It places high emphasis on individual liberty and majority rule. We will base our current discussion on the American model of democracy, known as Representative Democracy, where citizens elect someone to represent them in a discussion panel known as the Congress. Social stability refers to a tranquil life for the citizens, undaunted by violent riots or social uprises.

Democracy creates this stability by answering to the citizens’ needs of self-esteem by giving citizens a high level of liberty. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, when people have satisfied their lower levels of needs, it became essential that they satisfy their needs for self-esteem. The preconditions required for this satisfaction includes “independence and freedom”, which is a major component in any democracy. In providing citizens with this satisfaction, the probability that any major discontent, which could catalyze uprising, would manifest is greatly diminished. Thus, with the lowered chances of a revolt, the society could maintain its social stability.

However, it is very hard to appeal to every single person in the society, so there will be some form of displeasure regardless of the government system. Democracy tackles this problem by appeasing to the majority while pacifying the minority with its policies. JS Mill explains this,

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." (On Liberty, 1859)

Democracy is based on votes, and if the majority of the votes express desire for an action, it would be carried out, thus pleasing the majority. Most of the times, the government would try to justify the case, so that the minority is pacified. The insurance of minority rights in a country’s constitution can further pacify resentments towards the government. By minimizing negative sentiments towards the government, people are less likely to cause major troubles and disruptions in the society, ensuring stability.

However, democracy would have negative effects on the social stability of a society if the society's cultural context is ignored. For example, Pakistan was all too eager to accept a Democratic government system, but so far, it has gotten anything but social stability. Democracy's offer of individual liberty targets to pacify the citizens, prevent major resentments towards the government, thus preventing violent uprisings and stimulating social stability. However for Pakistan, the people interpret the government's embrace of Democracy as submission to the Western countries, whom they view with much hatred. Groups of citizens object violently to the government, resulting in Benazir Bhutto's assassination. A wave of anger pulsed through the nation, and sparked off more violent riots. Democracy as a governmental system must be implemented into a country that is ready to accept it. It has negative effects on social stability when abruptly employed without considering the cultural context of the country.

In conclusion, Democracy does create social stability in societies by pleasing the masses, but it is limited by differing cultural context of each society. Therefore, even though democracy theoretically creates social stability in some societies, it may not do so in others if the citizens are not ready to accept democracy. However, since democracy as a concept, without the influence of external factors, can achieve stability in a country, I agree to a large extent that democracy also spells for stability.