How do we assess democracy’s outcomes?
Democracy is a better form of government when compared with dictatorship or any other alternative. It is said that democracy is better because it:
- Promotes equality among citizens
- Enhances the dignity of the individual
- Improves the quality of decision-making
- Provides a method to resolve conflicts
- Allows room to correct mistakes
Over a hundred countries of the world today claim and practice some kind of democratic politics.
They have formal constitutions, they hold elections, they have parties and they guarantee rights of citizen.
While these democratic elements are common to most of them, these democracies are very much different from each other in terms of their social situation, their economic achievements and their cultures.
Clearly, what may be achieved or not achieved under each of these democracies will be very different.
Sometimes we expect everything and anything from democracy.
Our interest in and fascination for democracy often pushes us into taking a position that democracy can address all socio-economic and political problems.
If some of our expectations are not met, we start blaming the idea of democracy or we start doubting if we are living a democracy.
It can only create conditions for achieving something.
The citizens have to take advantage of these conditions and achieve those goals.
Moreover, democracy is just not related to many other things that we value.
Democracy is not a magical remedy for all our social ailments.
Democratic countries differ from each other:
In terms of their social situations.
Their economic achievements
Their cultures
Accountable, responsive and legitimate government:
These are some things that democracy must provide.
In a democracy, we are most concerned with ensuring that people will have the right to choose their rulers and people will have control over the rulers.
Whenever possible and necessary, citizens should be able to participate in decision making that affects them all.
Therefore, 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.
Some people think that democracy produces less effective government.
It is of course true that non democratic rulers do not have to deliberate in assemblies and worry about majorities and public opinion.
So, they can be very quick and efficient in decision making and implementation.
The democratic government will take more time to follow procedures before arriving at a decision.
But because it has followed procedures, its decisions always be both more acceptable to the people and more effective.
So, the cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
Democracy produces an accountable, responsive and legitimate government to ensure that people should choose their leaders and can put check on them.
Accountable government:
In an accountable government, people have the right to elect the leaders to form government and if possible they participate in decision making process.
Citizens have also an effective right to evaluate the decision making process.
Responsible government:
At the same time, democracy produces responsible government which is very much responsible towards the needs and aspirations of people.
It promotes the formation of public opinions, needs and expectations of the citizens.
There is proper deliberation and negotiation before arriving at any conclusion in decision making.
Democracy produces legitimate government.
Democracy provides properly planned institutions and practices for its functioning such as:
Free and fair elections
Regular public debate
Planned legislations
Right to information to citizens.
Besides, in democracy decisions are taken in a very transparent manner, i.e., called “Transparency in decision making”.
Citizens have the better chance to examine the process of decision making.
Thus, it is rightly said that democracy is best preferred government
Economic growth and development:
If we consider all democracies and all dictatorship for the fifty years between 1950 and 2000, dictatorships have slightly higher rate of economic growth.
The inability of democracy to achieve higher economic development worries us.
But this alone cannot be reason to reject democracy.
The difference in the rates of economic development between less developed countries with dictatorships and democracies is negligible.
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.
When we find such significant difference in the rates of economic growth between countries under dictatorship and democracy, it is better to prefer democracy as it has several other positive outcomes.
Economic outcomes of democracy:
Table 1:
Shows that on average dictatorial regimes have had a slightly better record of economic growth.
But when we compare their record only in poor countries, there is virtually no difference.
Table 2:
Within democracies there can be very high degrees of, inequalities.
In democratic countries like South Africa and Brazil the top 20 per cent people take away more than 60 percent of the nation’s income, leaving less than 3 percent for the bottom.
Countries like Denmark and Hungary are much better in this respect.
![Economic Growth And Development Democratic Politics, knowledgeuniverseonline.com]()
Reduction of inequality and poverty:
Democracies are based on political equality.
All individuals have equal weight in electing representatives.
A small number of ultra-rich enjoy a highly disproportionate share of wealth and incomes.
Not only that, their share in the total income of the country has been increasing.
Those at the bottom of the society have very little to depend upon.
Their incomes have been declining. Sometime they find it difficult to meet their basic needs of life, such as food, clothing, house, education and health.
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 will like to lose their votes.
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.
Accommodation of social diversity:
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 we can also 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.
But the example of Sri Lanka reminds us that at democracy must fulfill two conditions in order to achieve this outcome.
It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply a 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 even election, different persons and groups may form a majority.
Democracy remains democracy only as long as every citizen has a chance of being in majority at some point of time.
If someone is barred from being in majority on the basis of birth, then the democratic rule ceases t be accommodative for that person or group.
Dignity and freedom of the citizens:
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.
For societies, which have been built for long on the basis of subordination and domination, it is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.
Take the case of dignity of women.
Most societies across the world start from here historically male dominated societies.
Long struggle by women have created some sensitivity today that respect and equal treatment of women are necessary ingredients of a democratic society.
That does not mean that women are actually always treated with respect.
But once the principle is recognised, it becomes easier for women to wage a struggle against what is now unacceptable legally and morally.
In a non-democratic set up, this unacceptably would not have legal basis because the principle of individual freedom and dignity would not have the legal and normal force there.
The same is true for caste inequalities.
Democracy in India has strengthened the claims of the disadvantaged and discriminated caste for equal status and equal opportunity.
There are instances still of caste-based inequalities and atrocities, but these lack the moral and legal foundation.
Perhaps it is this recognition that makes ordinary citizens values their democratic rights.
People believe that their vote makes a difference to the ways the government is run and to their own self-respect.
Expectations from democracy also function as the criteria for judging any democratic country.
Democracy examination never gets over.
As it 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.
The fact that people are complaining is itself a testimony to the success of democracy
