Sorry Dr Alfiani there was an error.i though you were referring to the group one under russell's blog. Here is mine.

Development is important to every society or country. However, development cannot happen without stability. A country which is always in constant warfare cannot develop.

However, democracy is not necessary for the development of countries or societies, even though most of the countries with the highest level of human development are democracies. Singapore and South Korea, both of which practices democracy, are amongst the world’s richest countries, but other democratic countries like India and China are both medium-developed countries. Japan, which along with India has one of Asia’s most stable democracies, is far more developed than India and even Authoritarian China is ahead of India in terms of development. Hence, it is logical that since democracy is not necessary for development, democracy is also not needed for creating stability in the society.

However, democracy enables people to choose those who govern them and also, their way of life. The people would satisfied about their way of lives and not create any trouble. In an undemocratic country such as Malaysia, where its dominant Umno party thrives on a strong Malay agenda, racial riots happen and disrupt the peace in Malaysia. From 1950 to 1990, riots and demonstrations in many countries have caused greater destabilization in dictatorships. Moreover, authoritarian states experienced more wars than democratic states, which are partly due to their high economic costs. An example would be the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which were once regarded as models of development. These authoritarian states crumble because their rulers failed to manage the political and economic liberalization of the country. Hence, democracy, although it is not necessary for stability, it does ensure stability for the country.

The ideology behind democracy is freedom of the individual living in the country or liberalism. With freedom of choice, individuals in the society live equally and fairly, thus no violence or protests will occur. However, too much freedom could lead to conflict. Complete freedom of speech could lead to racist comments made by people about other races. Conflicts amongst races would then occur, and the stability of the society would be affected. Another factor that may come into consideration is that the leaders selected through the democratic process, who may just be charismatic but only adept at making false promises. This means that they take advantage of their term to do nothing but selfishly loot the society's wealth for themselves. This can also bring instability to a country.

To conclude, I have to say that democracy does not always create stability in a society. In the example of a democratic country such of that of Sri Lanka, there is still violence breaking out from the terrorist group Tamil Tigers and racial riots which happens everyday. Furthermore, democracy can logically be seen as having the majority rule the society. Should majority of the society be of less moral people, democracy would allow less morality in the society. Just because the majority want something to be enforced, it does not mean that it should be enforced any more than if the minority wanted it.

ahmad