“All countries should be democratic” Do you agree?

Democracy originated in 6th century BC, in the city of Athens, as a western

concept based on a pluralistic political structure, political freedom and the vote of the
majority. In today’s context, democracy exists in varying degrees in many countries.
As it is a western concept, there is a certain level of unsuitability of such a political
system, and the application of it to all countries in the world is thus questioned. A
democratic system should not be applied to all countries as its suitability differs
according to the nature and situation of different countries, hence although it may
benefit some countries, the result may not be replicated in others.

Admittedly, a democratic system has its merits as the notion of according

authority to the majority and can keep the government in check and prevent unfair
practices, double standards and the occurrence of corruption within the government.
This is so as the vote of the majority can prevent decisions that only benefit a small
group of people, or the government themselves and thus work against the welfare of
the community at large. This is attributed to the concept that it is a common opinion
shared by a significantly large group of people. An example would the case of the
USA’s government, whereby it is divided into three branches to keep corruption in
check, namely the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. As no one branch
contains absolute power and that each branch is balanced off of the others it creates
a system of checks and balances to protect the principals of democracy. Thus as this
prevents the ability of any part of the US government to control and manipulate
decisions to benefit themselves, it prevents the occurrence of corruption. Hence, as
democracy can allow this sharing of control and authority, it prevents the monopoly of
power in the hands of any one person or a group of people. Therefore, as it allows
corruption to be kept in check and the practice of impartiality in a country, it is a
salient merit of democracy that can be considered by all countries.

However, the need for economic growth and development in developing

countries may render democracy to a secondary level in favour of security and social
stability to achieve that goal, therefore removing elements of a pluralistic political
structure and political freedom would be more suitable for these countries. Also, in
developing nations, even with the right to vote and make decisions, it may not
necessarily produce the best results given that these people are often not educated
enough to make prudent choices, thus their primary goal of economic growth and
development cannot be achieved. Hence democracy is not suited for these nations.
To quote Lee Kuan Yew in his justification of a liberal authoritarian government for
Singapore, he mentioned that security and social stability is paramount to the then
developing country, as without them, democracy would not work as well. He said that
“Democracy is a superior form of government” and that economic growth had to be
achieved before “superior forms of government could be allowed”. Therefore, as the
importance of development came before the luxury of democracy, it sufficiently
explains the unsuitability of developing countries to advocate democracy as they
should concentrate on their economic situation and development, hence it shows that
not all countries can be democratic and thus should not be.

Democracy should not be applied to all countries, as countries with minorities

would suffer in terms of social instability caused by discriminatory practices by the
majority. As democracy is based on the vote and decision of the majority, the
opinions projected would not mirror the interests of the minorities, as their votes
would be insignificant in comparison, hence compromising their welfare. As this
would eventually lead to resentment towards the majority due to such practices, it will
cause social instability as racial and ethnic divisions and conflicts will arise. Such
discriminatory practices can be seen in the case of Switzerland, whereby Muslims
constitute five percent of the population, and that the construction of minarets (tall
slender towers, typically part of a mosque, with a balcony from which a muezzin calls
Muslims to prayer) was banned in a referendum. The construction of minarets was
based on the Muslim culture and religion, and by banning this construction; it shows
the discriminatory actions of the majority as they are insensitive to the Muslim culture
and religion in favour of their personal interests. Hence, as the government would be
able to take a more objective stance in such matters, it would be better for these
countries to not have a democratic system in place, as it would lead to further
discrimination and rejection of the minorities’ interests.

A democratic system should not be applied to all countries as governments

may engage in acts of populism to appeal to the people so as to stay in power, and
compromise other pertinent aspects such as the country’s economic growth and
development. These acts often seek to gain support from the people as they address
their needs and wants, however they may not be effective in correcting larger
problems that the country may face, as harsh measures are needed at times to push
the country towards greater progress and development. An example of this would be
the case of Argentina, whereby Juan Perón was elected to be the president for three
times in a row. He and his wife Eva were immensely popular among many
Argentinians, and to this day they are still considered icons by the Peronist Party.
While the Peróns' followers praised their efforts to eliminate poverty and to dignify
labour, their detractors considered them demagogues and dictators. This example
exemplifies that point that as Juan Perón was able to address issues such as poverty
and labour, he appealed greatly to the masses and was able to use this support to be
elected three times as president. Hence, as this may be unfair to other potential
politicians who could bring about other advantages to the country, it shows that
democracy may not help to bring good changes as the masses can be easily swayed
by persuasion and such acts of populism, therefore it is should not be applied to all
countries depending on the nature and situation of the country.

In conclusion, democracy should not be applied to all countries and different

countries have different problems and focus. Although democracy can work for some
countries, and that it has merits that are to be considered, the effects differ and vary
for different countries and may not produce the best results under such a political
system. Hence, the implementation of such a system should be done so with careful
consideration of the nature of the country, it situation and the ability to maintain
effective under this system.