- What democracy can actually be expected to deliver, and what it cannot
- Whether democratic governments are accountable, transparent and legitimate in practice
- What real data says about democracy’s link with economic growth and inequality
- The two conditions a democracy must meet to accommodate social diversity
- Why dignity, freedom and even public complaints are themselves outcomes worth counting
Earlier chapters asked how parts of democracy work. This one steps back and asks a bigger question: does
democracy actually deliver? It weighs real evidence on government, the economy, social diversity and
dignity, and gives a fair, two-sided verdict on each, not just praise.
1How Do We Assess Democracy’s Outcomes?
In Class 9 you concluded that democracy is a better form of government than dictatorship or any other
alternative, because it:
Promotes equality
among citizens
Enhances dignity
of the individual
Improves decisions
the quality of decision-making
Resolves conflicts
provides a method to do so
Corrects mistakes
allows room to do so
Most people, when asked, still prefer democracy over rule by a monarch, the military or religious leaders.
But far fewer are actually satisfied with the democracy they live under in practice. This is the chapter’s own
dilemma: democracy is seen to be good in principle, but felt to be not so good in its practice. This
dilemma invites us to think hard about democracy’s real outcomes.
Over a hundred countries today claim and practise some kind of democratic politics: formal constitutions,
elections, parties, guaranteed citizen rights. These features are common, but the countries differ hugely in
social situation, economic achievement and culture, so what each actually achieves differs too. The real
question: is there something we can expect from every democracy, just because it is one?
The chapter’s core idea: democracy is just a form of government. It can only create the
conditions for achieving something: quality government, development, equality, diversity,
dignity. Citizens themselves have to take advantage of those conditions to actually achieve those goals.
Do not treat democracy as a cure for every social, economic and political problem. When some expectation is
not met, people often blame “the idea of democracy” itself, or start doubting whether they are really living
in one. The book is explicit that democracy is just a form of government: it can only create conditions
for achieving something, and citizens must then take advantage of those conditions.
2Accountable, Responsive and Legitimate Government
The most basic outcome we should expect from democracy is a government that is accountable to citizens
and responsive to their needs, with citizens able to take part in decisions that affect them.
2.1 Is democratic government efficient?
Non-democratic rulers need not worry about assemblies, majorities or public opinion, so they can be fast in
taking and carrying out decisions. Democracy, based on deliberation and negotiation, is bound to be slower. Does
that make it inefficient?
A fast, non-democratic decision
- Taken quickly
- May not be accepted by the people
- May run into problems later
A slower, democratic decision
- Takes more time, following procedures
- More likely to be accepted, because the process was followed
- May be more effective
The book’s own conclusion: think of the delay as a cost, one that democracy pays for following
procedure. Because procedures were followed, its decisions may be both more acceptable to the people and more
effective, so “the cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.”
2.2 Transparency
Transparency is the right and the means a citizen has to find out whether a decision was taken through
the correct procedure. Democracy ensures decision making will be based on norms and procedures, so a citizen
who wants to know can find this out: a factor that is often missing from non-democratic government.
“Can you think of what and how the government knows about you and your family (for example ration cards and
voter identity cards)? What are the sources of information for you about the government?”
So a democracy should follow known procedures, stay accountable, and let citizens take part in decisions
whenever they think fit. To measure this outcome, look for:
Regular, free and fair elections
Open public debate
on major policies and legislation
Right to information
about the government and how it functions
2.3 The actual record is mixed
✓ Democracies have done well at
- Setting up regular and free elections
- Creating conditions for open public debate
✗ Democracies fall short on
- Elections that give a fair chance to everyone
- Subjecting every decision to public debate
- Sharing information with citizens
Even so, democracies remain much better on these counts than any non-democratic regime. On the substantive
side, is government attentive to people’s needs and largely free of corruption? The record is not
impressive: democracies often frustrate majority demands, and routine corruption shows they are not free of
this evil either. But nothing shows non-democracies are less corrupt or more responsive.
Nannu, a daily-wage earner in a Delhi slum, lost his ration card and got no response from officials for three
months. He then filed a Right to Information application asking for the daily progress made on his
application, the names of the officials who were supposed to act on it, and what action would be taken against
these officials for their inaction. Within a week of filing it, an inspector from the Food Department told him
the card had been made. When he went to collect it, the Food and Supply Officer gave him a very warm welcome,
offered him tea and asked him to withdraw his RTI application, since his work had already been done.
Nannu’s RTI application was followed within a week by the card being made: transparency at work.
2.4 The one respect democracy is certainly better: legitimacy
Right where it discusses these criteria, the book prints a margin remark: “So, the best outcome of
democracy is that it is a democracy! That is what we have discovered after all this mental gymnastics?” It
sounds circular. One way to read it: the text that follows answers it, by showing that democratic government
is “legitimate government”, “people’s own government”, a real outcome in its own right.
A democratic government may be slow, less efficient, not always responsive or clean, but it is
people’s own government. That is why there is overwhelming support for the idea of democracy all over
the world, in countries with democratic regimes and in countries without them. People wish to be ruled by
representatives they elect, and believe democracy suits their own country. Democracy’s ability to generate
its own support is itself an outcome that cannot be ignored.
(South Asia average 62%; 10% say dictatorship is sometimes better, 28% say it doesn’t matter). Democracy is
preferred over dictatorship everywhere in South Asia except Pakistan. Source: SDSA Team, State of Democracy
in South Asia, Oxford University Press, 2007.
3Economic Growth and Development
If democracies are expected to produce good government, is it fair to expect them to also produce
development? The evidence over fifty years (1950-2000) shows they often did not.
dictatorial regimes 4.42%, dictatorships slightly ahead. But among poor countries specifically, democracy
(4.28%) and dictatorship (4.34%) are almost identical. Source: A Przeworski, M E Alvarez, J A Cheibub and F
Limongi, Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990,
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
| Type of regime | Average growth rate (%), 1950-2000 |
|---|---|
| All democratic regimes | 3.95 |
| All dictatorial regimes | 4.42 |
| Poor countries under dictatorship | 4.34 |
| Poor countries under democracy | 4.28 |
Economic development depends on several factors: a country’s population size, global situation,
cooperation from other countries, the economic priorities adopted by the country. The difference in rates of
economic development between less developed countries with dictatorships and democracies is
negligible.
Students often conclude “dictatorship gives faster growth, so democracy is worse.” The book’s own verdict is
more careful: we cannot say that democracy is a guarantee of economic development, but we can expect
democracy not to lag behind dictatorships in this respect. The book adds that even when we find a significant
difference in growth rates between dictatorships and democracies, “it is better to prefer democracy as it has
several other positive outcomes.”
The cartoons in this part of the chapter show the disparities between the rich and the poor, and the book
notes that “there is often inequality of opportunities available to the poorer sections.” It asks: “Should the
gains of economic growth be evenly distributed? How can the poor get a voice for a better share in a nation?”
4Reduction of Inequality and Poverty
It may be more reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities than to outgrow dictatorships.
Democracies rest on political equality: one equal vote each. But alongside this equal political footing,
economic inequality keeps growing: a small, ultra-rich group takes a disproportionate and rising share of
wealth and income, while those at the bottom have very little, with declining incomes and basic needs, such as
food, clothing, housing, education and health, sometimes hard to meet.
| Country | Top 20%’s share of national income | Bottom 20%’s share |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 64.8% | 2.9% |
| Brazil | 63.0% | 2.6% |
| Russia | 53.7% | 4.4% |
| USA | 50.0% | 4.0% |
| United Kingdom | 45.0% | 6.0% |
| Denmark | 34.5% | 9.6% |
| Hungary | 34.4% | 10.0% |
Bars show each selected country’s top 20%’s share of national income, from under 35%
(Denmark, Hungary) to nearly 65% (South Africa).
In real life, democracies do not appear to be very successful in reducing economic inequalities. In India,
the poor constitute a large proportion of voters, and no party will like to lose their votes. Yet democratically
elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address poverty as you would expect. The situation is much
worse in some other countries. Bangladesh: more than half the population lives in poverty; people in
several poor countries now depend on rich countries even for food supplies.
“Democracy is a rule of the majority. The poor are in majority. So democracy must be a rule of the poor.
How can this not be the case?” The text beside it answers: democracies do not appear to be very successful
in reducing economic inequalities, and elected governments are not as keen to address poverty as you would
expect.
The book asks: “What would be your verdict on democracy if you had to base it purely on economic
performance of democratic regimes in terms of growth and equal distribution?” Answer both halves: we cannot say
democracy is a guarantee of economic development, and democracies do not appear very successful in
reducing inequality, but it is better to prefer democracy because of its several other positive outcomes
(legitimacy, accountability, dignity, accommodation of diversity), which a purely economic scorecard leaves
out.
5Accommodation of Social Diversity
Does democracy produce a peaceful, harmonious social life? Earlier chapters showed democracies accommodating
social divisions, for example how Belgium successfully negotiated differences among its ethnic
populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their internal competition, which reduces the
chance of tensions turning explosive or violent. Non-democratic regimes, by contrast, often turn a blind eye to
internal social differences, or actively suppress them.
No society can fully and permanently resolve conflicts among its groups, but we can certainly learn to respect
these differences and evolve mechanisms to negotiate them, and democracy is best suited to produce this
outcome. Ability to handle social differences, divisions and conflicts is thus a definite plus point of
democratic regimes.
The book shows two cartoons, titled “Enemies” and “Greeting”, depicting two different kinds of effects
democratic politics can have on social divisions. It asks you to take one example for each image and write a
paragraph on the outcome of democratic politics in each situation.
5.1 The Sri Lanka example: two conditions
But the example of Sri Lanka reminds us that a democracy must fulfil two conditions in order to achieve
this outcome:
Rule of majority ≠ rule by majority opinion alone
The majority must always work with the minority so that government represents the general view. Majority and minority positions are not fixed forever: they shift from decision to decision.
Majority rule ≠ rule by a majority community
“Majority” must never mean permanent rule by one religious, racial or linguistic community. If someone is barred by birth from ever being part of the majority, democratic rule stops being accommodative for that person or group.
6Dignity and Freedom of the Citizens
In promoting the dignity and freedom of the individual, democracy stands well above every other form of
government, though this is achieved in varying degrees in different democracies. Every individual wants
respect from others; conflict often arises because some people feel they are not treated with due
respect. This passion for respect and freedom is itself the basis of democracy.
6.1 Dignity of women
Most societies have historically been male-dominated. Long struggles by women have created some sensitivity today
that respect and equal treatment for women are necessary in a democratic society. Recognising this principle
does not mean women are always treated with respect in practice, but once recognised, it becomes far easier to
fight, both legally and morally, against what is now unacceptable. In a non-democratic set-up, that fight would
not have legal basis, because individual freedom and dignity would not have legal and moral force there.
6.2 Caste inequalities
The same logic applies to caste. Democracy in India has strengthened the claims of disadvantaged and
discriminated castes to equal status and equal opportunity. Caste-based inequalities and atrocities still occur
in places, but these lack the moral and legal foundations. The book suggests, with a “perhaps”, that it is
this recognition that makes ordinary citizens value their democratic rights.
Once a principle of equality is recognised, even if it is not yet fully practised, it gives citizens the
legal and moral ground to keep fighting for it. In a non-democratic set-up, the principle would not have that
legal and moral force.
The chapter’s own argument, applied to both women and caste.
7Democracy’s Own Examination Never Ends
Expectations from democracy are themselves the criteria for judging any democratic country. What makes
democracy distinctive is that its examination never gets over: as it passes one test, it produces another.
Once people get some benefit from democracy, they want it to work even better, and always come back with more
expectations and complaints.
Complaints as a sign of success: “The fact that people are complaining is itself a testimony to the
success of democracy.” It shows people have developed the awareness and the confidence to expect more, and to look
critically at power-holders. It transforms people from the status of a “subject” into that of a “citizen.”
Most people today believe their vote genuinely makes a difference to how the government is run, and to their
own self-interest.
- Democracy only creates conditions for good outcomes; citizens must use them, it is not a cure-all
- Government: mixed record on elections/debate/information; certainly better on legitimacy (worldwide support)
- Economy: dictatorships slightly ahead 1950-2000 (4.42% vs 3.95%), but the gap is negligible among poor countries alone (4.34% vs 4.28%)
- Inequality: political equality (one vote each) sits beside rising economic inequality; South Africa/Brazil’s top 20% take 60%+ vs Denmark/Hungary’s ~34%; Bangladesh, over half in poverty
- Diversity: democracy is best suited to negotiate social differences (Belgium, a definite plus point); this needs both that the majority works with the minority AND that rule by majority never becomes rule by a fixed religious/racial/linguistic community (Sri Lanka)
- Dignity: recognising a principle (women, disadvantaged castes) gives a legal/moral basis to keep fighting, even where practice falls short
- Complaints about democracy are a sign of success, not failure: they show citizens, not subjects
- Can I state the five outcomes Class 9 expected from democracy?
- Can I explain the “cost of time” argument for democratic delay?
- Can I quote the growth-rate numbers for democracies vs dictatorships, overall and for poor countries?
- Can I name the two conditions a democracy must meet to accommodate diversity (Sri Lanka)?
- Can I explain why complaints about democracy are a sign of success?