Overview
This chapter asks the hardest question in the book: does democracy actually deliver? It begins by warning against two lazy answers - the assumption that democracy must produce good outcomes because it is the best form of government, and the cynical dismissal that it produces nothing. The chapter's method is comparison over time and across countries, and its standard is set carefully: an overwhelming majority of people across the world prefer democracy, so the real question is not whether to keep it but what we can reasonably expect of it. It then works through five expected outcomes. Democracy produces an accountable, responsive and legitimate government - it is slower and messier than a dictatorship because it must follow procedures and consult, and the chapter argues that this delay is a price worth paying, since a citizen has the right to examine how a decision was taken. On economic growth the chapter is honest: over 1950 to 2000 dictatorships have a slightly better growth record, so economic performance alone cannot be the reason to prefer democracy. On inequality and poverty democracies have a poor record, since political equality has not translated into economic equality and a small number of ultra-rich hold a disproportionate share of wealth. On the accommodation of social diversity democracies do well, provided the majority works with the minority and majority rule is not permanent rule by one community. The strongest case is the last: democracy stands far superior in promoting the dignity and freedom of citizens, and its greatest achievement is that it produces citizens who complain about it, which is itself the proof that it is working.
Learning Objectives
- Explain why the outcomes of democracy must be assessed by comparison rather than by expectation alone.
- Explain what is meant by an accountable, responsive and legitimate government.
- Explain why democratic decision making is slower, and why the delay may be worth accepting.
- State the citizen's right to examine the process of decision making and explain the idea of transparency.
- Compare the economic growth record of democracies and dictatorships between 1950 and 2000 and draw the correct conclusion.
- Assess the record of democracies in reducing economic inequality and poverty.
- Explain how democracies accommodate social diversity and state the two conditions for this to work.
- Explain why democracy is superior to other forms of government in promoting dignity and freedom.
- Explain why the ability of citizens to complain about democracy is itself evidence of its success.
Topics in this chapter
8 topics · tap a topic title to jump straight to it.
How Do We Assess Democracy's Outcomes?
Two answers to avoid
We have already seen that democracy is a better form of government when compared with dictatorship or any other alternative. But that is a general answer. The chapter now asks something sharper: what outcomes can we reasonably expect of democracy?
Two lazy answers must be set aside. The first is to assume that because democracy is the best form of government it must produce good results in every field. The second is the cynical dismissal that democracy produces nothing at all. Both skip the actual work, which is comparison.
The evidence of preference
Over a hundred countries of the world today claim and practise some kind of democratic politics. They have formal constitutions, they hold elections, they have parties and they guarantee rights of citizens. An overwhelming majority of people across the world prefer democracy to any other form of government, and support for democracy is expanding.
The method
Democracy is a better form of government when compared with any non-democratic alternative, so we can expect it to be more accountable, more responsive and more legitimate. But we must remember two things when assessing it. First, democracy is just a form of government — it can only create conditions for achieving something, and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions. Second, when we assess democracy we look for a set of expectations, and then examine whether democracy is fulfilling them, using comparisons over time and between countries.
- Over a hundred countries practise some form of democratic politics with constitutions, elections, parties and guaranteed rights.
- Democracy creates conditions; citizens must take advantage of them - the form of government cannot do the work by itself.
- Assessment means comparison: over time within a country, and across countries at the same time.
Accountable, Responsive and Legitimate Government
The core expectation
The most basic outcome of democracy should be that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens and responsive to the needs and expectations of the citizens.
Regular, free and fair elections
Some of the things that a democracy must provide: regular, free and fair elections; open public debate on major policies and legislations; and citizens' right to information about the government and its functioning.
Legitimacy
Democracy's ability to generate its own support is itself an outcome that cannot be ignored. Democracy is legitimate government. It may be slow, less efficient, not always very responsive or clean. But a democratic government is people's own government.
There is overwhelming support for the idea of democracy all over the world, and such support is available in countries with different levels of development. Democracies throughout the world have expanded during the last decade. This is a remarkable outcome. People wish to be ruled by representatives elected by them. They also believe that democracy is suitable for their country.
- Three things a democracy must provide: regular free and fair elections, open public debate on major policies, and citizens' right to information.
- A democratic government may be slow, inefficient and not always clean, but it is people's own government.
- Support for democracy is found across countries at very different levels of development.
Transparency and the Right to Examine the Process
Not just the decision, but how it was taken
A citizen who wants to know if a decision was taken through the correct procedures can find this out. She has the right and the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
This factor is often missing from a non-democratic government. Therefore, when we are talking about a democracy's ability to produce a government that is accountable, we should look at both the outcome and the process that produced it.
The comparison with dictatorship
A dictatorial regime can make decisions quickly and may sometimes even implement them efficiently. But what it cannot do is allow an ordinary citizen to ask how a decision was reached, on whose advice, and by what rule. In a democracy the process is itself public property.
The record
Democracies often frustrate the needs of the people and often ignore the demands of a majority of its population. The routine tales of corruption are enough to convince us that democracy is not free of evil. In fact the accounts of corruption and the manipulation of elections lead us to ask: is democracy really accountable and responsive to the people? The honest answer is that democracy fails to fully live up to this expectation, but it remains better than any available alternative, because it is the only system that gives citizens the standing to make the complaint at all.
- Transparency means the citizen has the right and the means to examine the process by which a decision was taken.
- Look at both the outcome and the process - a good decision taken by an unaccountable method is still a democratic failure.
- Democracies do not fully meet this expectation, but no non-democratic system even allows the question to be asked.
The Cost of Democracy: Delay in Decision Making
The complaint
The complaint against democracy is familiar: it is all about political competition and power play; there is no scope for morality, and it produces delay. Democracy is based on the idea of deliberation and negotiation. So some delay is bound to take place.
The trade-off stated fairly
A non-democratic government may take quick decisions. But it may not be able to gather public support for its decisions and may find it very difficult to implement them. That is the hidden cost of speed: a decision taken without consultation must then be enforced against people who were never persuaded.
The verdict
Democracy ensures that decision making will be based on norms and procedures. Therefore it is attached to values. The delay is not a defect in the machinery; it is the machinery working. A citizen has the right to be consulted, and consultation takes time.
The chapter's judgment is that this is a price worth paying: the resulting decision is more likely to be accepted, more likely to be implementable, and always open to examination afterwards.
- Democracy is based on deliberation and negotiation, so some delay is bound to take place.
- A non-democratic government decides quickly but may be unable to gather support or implement the decision.
- Delay is the cost of a decision-making process based on norms, procedures and consultation.
Economic Growth and Development: An Honest Comparison
The finding
If we consider all democracies and all dictatorships for the fifty years between 1950 and 2000, dictatorships have a slightly higher rate of economic growth. When we compare only poor countries under dictatorship with poor countries under democracy, the difference in their rates of economic development is negligible.
The conclusion the chapter draws
Overall, we cannot say that democracy is a guarantee of economic development. But we can expect democracy not to lag behind dictatorships in this respect. And since dictatorship has several other negative outcomes, there is no reason to prefer dictatorship on the ground of higher economic growth.
Why growth differs
Economic development depends on several factors: the country's population size, global situation, cooperation from other countries, economic priorities adopted by the country, and so on. However, the difference between the rates of economic development between less developed countries with dictatorships and democracies is negligible.
This is one of the most intellectually honest passages in the textbook. It refuses to overclaim. If you want to defend democracy, the chapter says, do not do it on growth figures — do it on the grounds where the case is actually strong.
- 1950-2000: dictatorships show a slightly higher growth rate overall.
- Among poor countries the difference between dictatorships and democracies is negligible.
- Growth depends on population size, the global situation, cooperation from other countries and economic priorities - not on the form of government alone.
Reduction of Inequality and Poverty
The expectation
Besides growth, we expect democracies to reduce economic disparities. Democracies are based on political equality: all individuals have equal weight in electing representatives. We would expect governments elected by such equal citizens to serve the interests of all.
The record
Yet we find growing economic inequalities. A small number of ultra-rich enjoy a highly disproportionate share of wealth and incomes. Their share in the total income of the country has been increasing. Those at the bottom of society have very little to depend upon. Their incomes have been declining. Sometimes they find it difficult to meet their basic needs of life such as food, clothing, house, education and health.
The political puzzle
In actual life, democracies do not appear to be very successful in reducing economic inequalities. The poor constitute a large proportion of our voters and no party would like to lose their votes. Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to be.
The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more than half of its population lives in poverty. People in several poor countries are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.
So the honest summary is: political equality has not produced economic equality. This is the clearest gap between democracy's promise and its record.
- Democracy rests on political equality - one person one vote, each vote of equal weight.
- A small number of ultra-rich take a rising and disproportionate share of national income while incomes at the bottom decline.
- The poor are a large share of the electorate, yet elected governments are not as keen to tackle poverty as one would expect.
Accommodation of Social Diversity
The strong case
Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosive or violent. No society can fully and permanently resolve conflicts among different groups. But we can certainly learn to respect these differences and evolve mechanisms to negotiate the differences.
Democracy is best suited to produce this outcome. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences. Ability to handle social differences, divisions and conflicts is thus a definite plus point of democratic regimes.
Two conditions
But the ability to handle social differences, divisions and conflicts is not an automatic outcome. Two conditions apply.
- It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that governments function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinions are not permanent.
- It is also necessary that rule by majority does not become rule by majority community in terms of religion or race or linguistic group, etc. Rule by majority means that in case of every decision or in case of every election, different persons and groups may and can form a majority. Democracy remains democracy only as long as every citizen has a chance of being in majority at some point of time.
Recall Sri Lanka from the first chapter. Its majority was permanent and defined by community, which is precisely the condition the second point rules out.
- Democracy reduces the chance that social tensions become explosive, by giving competition a procedure.
- Condition one: the majority must work with the minority; majority and minority opinions are not permanent.
- Condition two: rule by majority must not become permanent rule by one religious, racial or linguistic community - the Sri Lankan failure.
Dignity and Freedom of the Citizens
The strongest ground
Democracy stands much superior to any other form of government in promoting dignity and freedom of the individual. Every individual wants to receive respect from fellow beings. Often conflicts arise among individuals because some feel that they are not treated with due respect.
The passion for respect and freedom are the basis of democracy. Democracies throughout the world have recognised this, at least in principle. This has been achieved in various degrees in various democracies.
Two examples of dignity won
- The dignity of women. In most societies women's claim to equal treatment was not accepted; it required a long struggle. Now there is a respect for women. Democracies have increased women's status in society. In a non-democratic set up, this unacceptability of women would not have become an issue at all.
- Caste inequalities. The same is true of caste inequalities. Democracy in India has strengthened the claims of the disadvantaged and discriminated castes for equal status and equal opportunity.
The most important insight in the chapter
There are instances still of caste-based inequalities and atrocities, but these lack the moral and legal foundations. Perhaps these are conflicts that are emerging as a result of the democratic nature of politics.
Expectations from democracy also function as the criteria for judging any democratic country. What is most distinctive about democracy is that its examination never gets over. As democracy passes one test, it produces another test. As people get some benefits of democracy, they ask for more and want to make democracy even better. That is why, when we ask people about the way democracy functions, they will always come up with more expectations, and many complaints.
The fact that people are complaining is itself a testimony to the success of democracy: it shows that people have developed awareness and the ability to expect and to look critically at power holders and the high and the mighty. A public expression of dissatisfaction with democracy shows the success of the democratic project: it transforms people from the status of a subject into that of a citizen.
- Women's claim to equal treatment required a long struggle; in a non-democratic setup it would never have become an issue at all.
- Caste-based atrocities persist but have lost their moral and legal foundation - the conflict itself is a product of democratic politics.
- Complaints about democracy are evidence of its success: they show subjects have become citizens.
Key Concepts
- Accountable government
- A government answerable to the citizens for its decisions, through elections, debate and the right to information.
- Responsive government
- A government that attends to the needs and expectations of the citizens.
- Legitimate government
- A government that is people's own, elected by them, and accepted as rightful even when it is slow or inefficient.
- Transparency
- The citizen's right and means to examine the process by which a decision was taken, not merely its outcome.
- Deliberation
- Careful discussion and negotiation before a decision, which is the reason democratic decision making takes time.
- Political equality
- The principle that all individuals have equal weight in electing representatives - one person, one vote, one value.
- Economic inequality
- The unequal distribution of income and wealth, which democracies have largely failed to reduce.
- Economic growth
- The increase in a country's output; between 1950 and 2000 dictatorships had a slightly better record, so growth is not a reason to prefer democracy.
- Accommodation of social diversity
- The ability of a democratic system to handle social differences, divisions and conflicts by giving competition a procedure.
- Rule by majority
- The principle that in every decision or election different persons and groups may form the majority - not permanent rule by one community.
- Dignity
- The respect an individual receives from fellow beings; promoting it is the ground on which democracy is clearly superior.
- Subject
- A person who is merely ruled, as opposed to a citizen, who expects, questions and holds power holders to account.
Practice Questions
-
On what basic outcome can we reasonably expect democracy to produce a better outcome than non-democracy? / किस मूल परिणाम के संदर्भ में हम यथोचित रूप से अपेक्षा कर सकते हैं कि लोकतंत्र गैर-लोकतंत्र से बेहतर परिणाम देगा?
Show answer
We can expect democracy to produce a government that is accountable to the citizens and responsive to their needs and expectations, because it follows procedures and is answerable to the people. / हम अपेक्षा कर सकते हैं कि लोकतंत्र ऐसी सरकार दे जो नागरिकों के प्रति जवाबदेह हो और उनकी आवश्यकताओं व अपेक्षाओं के प्रति संवेदनशील हो, क्योंकि वह प्रक्रियाओं का पालन करती है और जनता को उत्तरदायी होती है।
-
How is democracy considered better than other forms of government in terms of decision-making? / निर्णय लेने की दृष्टि से लोकतंत्र को अन्य शासन रूपों से बेहतर क्यों माना जाता है?
Show answer
Democratic decisions involve many people, discussions and meetings, which reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions; though it may be slower, the decisions are more acceptable to the people and more likely to be followed. / लोकतांत्रिक निर्णयों में अनेक लोग, चर्चाएँ और बैठकें शामिल होती हैं, जिससे जल्दबाजी या गैर-जिम्मेदार निर्णयों की संभावना घटती है; भले ही यह धीमा हो, निर्णय जनता को अधिक स्वीकार्य होते हैं और उनके पालन की संभावना अधिक रहती है।
-
'Democracy is a legitimate government.' Explain. / 'लोकतंत्र एक वैध सरकार है।' समझाइए।
Show answer
A democratic government is people's own government, elected by them through fair and free elections, conducted in a transparent manner, so even if it is slow and less efficient, citizens accept it as their own and consider it legitimate. / लोकतांत्रिक सरकार जनता की अपनी सरकार होती है, जिसे स्वतंत्र और निष्पक्ष चुनावों के माध्यम से पारदर्शी रीति से चुना जाता है, इसलिए भले ही वह धीमी और कम कुशल हो, नागरिक उसे अपनी मानते हैं और वैध समझते हैं।
-
Why do democracies show comparatively low economic growth, and why do we still accept democracy? / लोकतंत्रों में आर्थिक विकास तुलनात्मक रूप से कम क्यों दिखता है, और फिर भी हम लोकतंत्र को क्यों स्वीकार करते हैं?
Show answer
Comparisons show that the difference in economic growth rates between democracies and dictatorships is negligible, and growth depends on many other factors; we still prefer democracy because it is better at sharing dignity, providing freedom and accommodating diversity, which money alone cannot give. / तुलनाएँ दिखाती हैं कि लोकतंत्रों और तानाशाहियों के बीच आर्थिक विकास दर का अंतर नगण्य है, और विकास कई अन्य कारकों पर निर्भर करता है; फिर भी हम लोकतंत्र को इसलिए पसंद करते हैं क्योंकि वह गरिमा बाँटने, स्वतंत्रता देने और विविधता को समायोजित करने में बेहतर है, जो केवल धन नहीं दे सकता।
-
How does democracy accommodate social diversity better than other forms of government? / लोकतंत्र अन्य शासन रूपों की तुलना में सामाजिक विविधता को बेहतर ढंग से किस प्रकार समायोजित करता है?
Show answer
Democracy develops a way of handling differences and conflicts through negotiation rather than violence; it ensures that the majority works with the minority so rule by the majority does not become the rule of one community, as seen in how Belgium accommodated its communities. / लोकतंत्र मतभेदों और टकरावों को हिंसा के बजाय बातचीत से सुलझाने का तरीका विकसित करता है; यह सुनिश्चित करता है कि बहुमत अल्पमत के साथ मिलकर चले ताकि बहुमत का शासन किसी एक समुदाय का शासन न बन जाए, जैसा बेल्जियम ने अपने समुदायों को समायोजित करके दिखाया।
-
Evaluate the record of democracy in reducing economic inequality and poverty. / आर्थिक असमानता और गरीबी को कम करने में लोकतंत्र के रिकॉर्ड का मूल्यांकन कीजिए।
Show answer
Democracies have a large number of poor people, and in practice they have not been very successful in reducing economic inequalities since a small group remains very rich while the poor depend on them; though everyone has one vote, democracies have not removed poverty as expected. / लोकतंत्रों में बड़ी संख्या में गरीब लोग होते हैं, और व्यवहार में वे आर्थिक असमानताओं को कम करने में बहुत सफल नहीं रहे हैं क्योंकि एक छोटा समूह बहुत अमीर रहता है जबकि गरीब उन पर निर्भर रहते हैं; हालाँकि सबके पास एक वोट है, लोकतंत्र अपेक्षानुसार गरीबी नहीं हटा सके।
-
How does democracy promote the dignity and freedom of citizens? / लोकतंत्र नागरिकों की गरिमा और स्वतंत्रता को किस प्रकार बढ़ावा देता है?
Show answer
Democracy is based on the principle of political equality, recognising the equal worth of all individuals; it has strengthened the claims of the disadvantaged and discriminated, such as the dignity of women and equality for marginalised castes, since these demands gain legitimacy in a democracy. / लोकतंत्र राजनीतिक समानता के सिद्धांत पर आधारित है, जो सभी व्यक्तियों के समान मूल्य को मान्यता देता है; इसने वंचितों और भेदभाव झेलने वालों के दावों को मजबूत किया है, जैसे महिलाओं की गरिमा और हाशिए की जातियों के लिए समानता, क्योंकि ये माँगें लोकतंत्र में वैधता पाती हैं।
-
Why is the expectation from democracy itself considered the best argument in favour of democracy? / लोकतंत्र से की जाने वाली अपेक्षा को ही लोकतंत्र के पक्ष में सर्वोत्तम तर्क क्यों माना जाता है?
Show answer
The fact that people keep complaining about and expecting more from democracy shows their faith in it; this readiness to demand more and to measure democracy against high standards is itself proof of its success and the surest sign of its progress. / यह तथ्य कि लोग लोकतंत्र की शिकायत करते रहते हैं और उससे और अधिक की अपेक्षा करते हैं, उनके इसमें विश्वास को दर्शाता है; अधिक माँगने और लोकतंत्र को ऊँचे मानकों पर परखने की यह तत्परता ही उसकी सफलता का प्रमाण और प्रगति का सबसे पक्का संकेत है।
Related Laws & Principles
Explore allFoundational laws & principles behind this chapter. Each one opens a full page — what it says, why it matters, five practice questions and the mistakes to avoid.