How do we assess democracy’s outcomes?
People love the idea of a fair school election, yet they complain when the elected council does not fix the water cooler fast. Liking an idea and being satisfied with its working are two different things.
The outcomes of democracy are what we can reasonably expect from democracy, just because it is a democracy, and what it actually delivers. Democracy is only a form of government: it can create conditions for achieving something, but citizens must use them.
Key idea 1: Why democracy is considered better — Compared with dictatorship or any other alternative, democracy is considered 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, and allows room to correct mistakes. Most people support democracy over rule by a monarch, the military or religious leaders. But not many are satisfied with democracy in practice, and this is a dilemma: democracy seems good in principle but not so good in practice.
Key idea 2: Moral and prudential reasons — We can support democracy for moral reasons (it is right that people rule themselves) and for prudential reasons (practical benefits it brings). Over a hundred countries today claim to practise democratic politics: they have formal constitutions, hold elections, have parties and guarantee citizens’ rights. Yet they differ greatly in social situations, economic achievements and cultures, so what each can achieve will differ. The question then is: what can we expect from every democracy just because it is a democracy?
Key idea 3: Do not expect miracles — Our fascination with democracy can push us to think that it can solve every socio-economic and political problem. When some expectations are not met, we start blaming the idea of democracy, or doubting whether we live in a democracy at all. The first step to thinking clearly is to recognise that democracy is just a form of government. It creates conditions, and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions to achieve their goals. The sensible way is to examine the expected outcomes one by one: the quality of government, economic well-being, inequality, social differences and conflict, and freedom and dignity.
- Easy: A person says “elections happen, so poverty will end by itself”. What is wrong? — Democracy only creates conditions; citizens and policy must use them to reduce poverty.
- Medium: “Democracy is right because people should rule themselves”. Moral or prudential reason? — Moral.
- Exam-type: Why can two democracies have very different results? — Their social situations, economies and cultures are different.
In the figure: These are what we expect from democracy; the next sections check if they come true.
Democracy is a form of government that creates conditions; citizens must use them. Assess it on five expected outcomes: government quality, economy, inequality, social harmony, freedom and dignity.
Blaming the idea of democracy for every failure, or expecting it to solve all problems. A weak result may come from the people, policies or situation, not only from democracy.
Say it as: “Democracy opens the door; citizens must walk through it.” Memory clue: E-D-Q-C-M: Equality, Dignity, Quality of decisions, Conflicts, Mistakes.
Spot the difference
| Point | Moral reason | Prudential reason |
|---|---|---|
| Idea | It is right in principle | It gives practical benefits |
| Example | Equal dignity of all | Better decisions, conflict resolution |
Practice questions
- 1What is meant by the outcomes of democracy?
- 2Give any two reasons why democracy is better than dictatorship.
- 3What is a prudential reason?
- 4What is the dilemma about democracy in principle and in practice?
- 5Why is it wrong to expect democracy to solve all problems?
- 6List the five areas in which we assess democracy’s outcomes.
- 7Explain why democracy is “just a form of government” and what citizens must do.
- 8Cause and result: why do the results of democracy differ in different countries?
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1What we can reasonably expect from democracy as a form of government and what it actually delivers.
- 2Any two: equality, dignity, better decisions, conflict resolution, room to correct mistakes.
- 3A reason based on practical benefits.
- 4It seems good in principle but people are not satisfied with it in practice.
- 5Because democracy only creates conditions; outcomes depend on citizens, policies and situation.
- 6Quality of government; economic well-being; inequality; social differences and conflict; freedom and dignity.
- 7It does not guarantee results; it gives rights and a framework, and citizens must use them to achieve goals.
- 8Social situations, economies and cultures differ, so what each democracy can achieve differs.
Accountable, responsive and legitimate government
A class decision made after hearing everyone takes longer than the teacher simply announcing it, but children accept it and follow it more willingly, and anyone can ask how it was reached.
A democratic government is expected to be accountable (answerable to citizens), responsive (attentive to their needs) and legitimate (accepted as the people’s own government). Transparency means citizens can find out whether decisions were made by correct procedures.
Key idea 1: Is democratic government efficient? — Non-democratic rulers need not worry about assemblies, majorities or public opinion, so they can decide quickly. Democracy is based on deliberation and negotiation, so some delay is bound to happen. But a dictatorial decision that people do not accept can bring problems, while a democratic decision taken after procedure is more acceptable and more effective, so the time cost is probably worth it. Democracy also ensures that decisions follow norms and procedures, so a citizen can check them. This transparency is often missing in non-democratic governments.
Key idea 2: What to look for, and the record — To measure this outcome look for regular, free and fair elections; open public debate on major policies and laws; and citizens’ right to information about the government. The record is mixed. Democracies have done better at regular, free elections and open debate, but most fall short of elections that give everyone a fair chance and of subjecting every decision to debate, and they do not have a good record of sharing information. Democracy is also expected to be attentive to people’s needs and largely free of corruption, and its record on these two counts is not impressive: it often frustrates people’s needs, and corruption stories are routine. But nothing shows that non-democracies are less corrupt or more sensitive to people.
Key idea 3: Legitimacy: people’s own government — In one respect democracy is certainly better than the alternatives: a democratic government is legitimate. It may be slow, less efficient, not always responsive or clean, but it is the people’s own government. That is why support for the idea of democracy is overwhelming all over the world, including South Asia, in countries with democratic regimes and in those without. People want to be ruled by representatives they elect and believe democracy suits their country. Democracy’s ability to generate its own support is itself an outcome that cannot be ignored.
- Easy: A citizen asks how a road contract was awarded and gets the papers. Which quality? — Transparency.
- Medium: A decision took three months of debate but nobody protested after. Which benefit? — Acceptability (legitimacy); the delay bought acceptance.
- Exam-type: Can we say non-democracies are less corrupt? — No; there is nothing to show this.
In the figure: Mixed record, but still better than non-democratic rule on these points.
What happened before the Right to Information Act (2005)? In Rajasthan, villagers and activists of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) wanted to know how money for village works was spent. In December 1994 they held a jan sunwai (public hearing), where accounts were read out in public and villagers compared them with what they had seen on the ground. They began to ask for copies of records, and in 1996 they sat on a long protest in Beawar for the right to see them.
What happened after the Right to Information Act (2005)? Rajasthan passed a right to information law in 2000, and Parliament passed the Right to Information Act in 2005, which came into force in October 2005. Now any citizen can ask a public authority for information, such as what was spent on a road, and expect an answer within a fixed time. This gave a legal tool to the transparency that democracy promises.
Democracy gives accountable, responsive, legitimate government. It may be slower but decisions are more acceptable and open to checking. Record: good on elections and debate, weak on information, responsiveness and corruption; legitimacy is its big plus.
Saying that slow decisions mean a failed democracy. The time spent on procedure often earns acceptance and prevents bigger problems.
ART: Accountable, Responsive, Transparent; and legitimacy is the bonus. Memory clue: ARTL: Accountable, Responsive, Transparent, Legitimate.
Spot the difference
| Point | Democratic government | Non-democratic government |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Slower, with debate | Can be fast |
| Acceptance | Legitimate | Often not accepted |
| Checking | Citizens can check procedure | Often missing |
Practice questions
- 1What is transparency?
- 2Why is a democratic government called legitimate?
- 3Why is democratic decision-making usually slower?
- 4Name any three features to look for in an accountable government.
- 5Where has democracy done better and where has it fallen short?
- 6How did the MKSS jan sunwai help transparency?
- 7Is the time democracy takes for decisions worth it? Argue.
- 8Cause and result: why does support for democracy remain high even where it works imperfectly?
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1Citizens’ right and means to find out whether decisions followed correct procedures.
- 2Because it is the people’s own government, chosen by them.
- 3Because it is based on deliberation, procedures and negotiation.
- 4Any three: regular free and fair elections; open public debate; citizens’ right to information; procedures followed.
- 5Better: free elections and open debate. Short: sharing information, fair chances, corruption.
- 6Villagers heard accounts read in public, compared them with facts and demanded records; this grew into the RTI law.
- 7Yes: decisions after procedure are more acceptable and effective and can be checked; fast but unaccepted decisions bring problems.
- 8Because it is legitimate: people feel it is their own government and want to be ruled by those they elect.
Economic outcomes: growth, inequality and poverty
If a class prize money is split so that three students take most of it and the rest get a few rupees, everyone can see the cake grew but the slices are unequal. Economics asks both: is the cake growing, and who gets the slices?
Economic growth is the rise in a country’s production and income; inequality is how unevenly that income is shared; poverty is not being able to meet basic needs like food, clothing, house, education and health.
Key idea 1: Growth: dictatorship vs democracy — Since democracies are expected to give good governments, one expects development too, but in practice many did not deliver. For the fifty years 1950 to 2000, dictatorships had a slightly higher growth rate: 4.42 per cent against 3.95 per cent for democracies. But among poor countries the difference is negligible: 4.34 for dictatorships and 4.28 for democracies. Growth depends on population size, the global situation, cooperation from other countries and economic priorities. So democracy is no guarantee of development, but we can expect it not to lag behind dictatorships, and its other positive outcomes make it preferable.
Key idea 2: Inequality within democracies — Democracy rests on political equality, yet economic inequality can be very high inside democracies. In South Africa the top 20 per cent take 64.8 per cent of national income and the bottom 20 per cent only 2.9; in Brazil it is 63.0 and 2.6. In Denmark the shares are 34.5 and 9.6, and in Hungary 34.4 and 10.0, much more equal. Also, there is often inequality of opportunities available to the poorer sections. A small number of ultra-rich enjoy a highly disproportionate share of income, and those at the bottom sometimes find it hard to meet basic needs.
Key idea 3: Poverty: where democracy has been weak — Democracies do not appear very successful in reducing economic inequalities. The poor are a large share of voters and no party wants to lose their votes, yet elected governments do not seem as keen to address poverty as one would expect. In Bangladesh more than half of the population lives in poverty, and people in several poor countries depend on rich countries even for food. Still, we can expect democracies to work to reduce disparities, and citizens can press for it, because the poor have a vote and a voice that they would not have under dictatorship.
- Easy: Growth 4.42% vs 3.95%. What is the difference? — 0.47 percentage points, in favour of dictatorships.
- Medium: Poor countries: dictatorship 4.34%, democracy 4.28%. Is democracy clearly worse? — No; the difference of 0.06 is negligible.
- Exam-type: South Africa top 20% share 64.8%, bottom 20% 2.9%. About how many times bigger is the top share? — About 22 times (64.8 ÷ 2.9 ≈ 22.3).
In the figure: Very unequal: the top fifth takes almost two-thirds of the income.
Growth: dictatorships slightly higher overall (4.42 vs 3.95) but almost equal among poor countries (4.34 vs 4.28). Democracy does not guarantee development or equality; South Africa and Brazil very unequal, Denmark and Hungary much less.
Quoting only the all-countries growth figures (4.42 vs 3.95) and concluding that dictatorship is better. For poor countries the gap is almost zero, and growth is not the only outcome.
Compare like with like: all countries vs all, poor countries vs poor; then check the share of the top 20% against the bottom 20%. Memory clue: 4.42 · 3.95 · 4.34 · 4.28: dictatorship-all, democracy-all, dictatorship-poor, democracy-poor.
Spot the difference
| Regime group (1950–2000) | Growth rate % | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| All democracies | 3.95 | slightly lower |
| All dictatorships | 4.42 | slightly higher |
| Poor, dictatorship | 4.34 | almost equal |
| Poor, democracy | 4.28 | almost equal |
Practice questions
- 1Which regimes had a slightly higher growth rate in 1950–2000?
- 2Name two countries with very high inequality.
- 3What is poverty?
- 4Why can we not say democracy is worse because of the growth figures?
- 5Compare the income shares of the top and bottom 20% in Brazil and Denmark.
- 6List factors on which economic growth depends.
- 7Why have democracies not been very successful in reducing poverty even though the poor are many voters?
- 8Cause and result: what does democracy offer the poor that dictatorship may not?
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1Dictatorships (4.42% vs 3.95%).
- 2Any two: South Africa, Brazil.
- 3Not being able to meet basic needs like food, clothing, house, education and health.
- 4For poor countries the gap is negligible (4.34 vs 4.28), growth has many causes, and democracy has other gains.
- 5Brazil 63.0% vs 2.6%; Denmark 34.5% vs 9.6%; Brazil is far more unequal.
- 6Population size, global situation, cooperation from other countries, economic priorities.
- 7Governments are not as keen as expected, other pressures and priorities compete, and unequal opportunities persist.
- 8A vote and a voice to press for change.
Social diversity, dignity and freedom
A good class lets children with different languages and festivals work side by side, with fair rules for who gets a turn. Nobody wins forever and nobody is locked out forever.
Democracy is expected to accommodate social diversity by giving a peaceful procedure for competition, and to protect the dignity and freedom of every citizen. Rule by majority must not become rule by a majority community.
Key idea 1: Harmony and the two conditions — Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct competition, which reduces the chance of tensions turning explosive or violent. No society can fully and permanently resolve conflicts among groups, but we can learn to respect differences and build ways to negotiate them. Non-democratic regimes often ignore or suppress social differences. Belgium’s negotiation of ethnic differences is an example, while Sri Lanka reminds us of two conditions: (1) democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion; the majority must always work with the minority, and majority and minority opinions are not permanent. (2) Rule by majority must not become rule by a majority community of a religion, race or language.
Key idea 2: Dignity and freedom — Democracy is far better than any other form of government in promoting the dignity and freedom of the individual. Everyone wants respect, and the passion for respect and freedom is the basis of democracy. Societies built for long on domination and subordination find it hard to accept equality. Long struggles by women have created some sensitivity today that equal treatment of women is a necessary part of a democratic society. This does not mean women are always respected, but once the principle is recognised it is easier to struggle against what is now legally and morally unacceptable. The same is true of caste inequality: democracy in India has strengthened the claims of disadvantaged castes to equal status and opportunity, and caste atrocities still occur but lack moral and legal foundation.
Key idea 3: Complaints are a sign of success — The most distinctive thing about democracy is that its examination never gets over. As democracy passes one test, it produces another. As people get some benefits they ask for more and want democracy to be even better. That is why people always come up with more expectations and many complaints. The fact that people complain is itself a testimony to the success of democracy: it shows that people have developed awareness and the ability to look critically at power holders. A public expression of dissatisfaction shows the success of the democratic project, because it transforms people from subjects into citizens. Most individuals today believe their vote makes a difference to how the government is run and to their own interest.
- Easy: A group is barred from ever being in the majority because of birth. Is that democratic? — No; democracy needs every citizen to have a chance of being in the majority sometime.
- Medium: People complain loudly about their elected council. Is democracy failing? — Not necessarily; complaints show awareness and critical citizens.
- Exam-type: A law says caste atrocities are illegal, yet one happens. Does the law lose meaning? — No; the principle gives a legal and moral basis to fight it.
In the figure: Each success raises expectations; that is how democracy keeps improving.
Democracy handles social differences peacefully if majority works with minority and is not a majority community’s rule. It promotes dignity and freedom best. Its test never ends; complaints show citizens, not subjects.
Thinking democracy has removed all conflict and inequality. It has not; it offers peaceful ways to handle conflict and a principle of dignity to struggle for.
Two conditions to remember: Majority works WITH minority; majority is never a fixed community. Memory clue: W-M-C: With the minority, Moving majority, Citizen not subject.
Spot the difference
| Point | Non-democratic regime | Democracy |
|---|---|---|
| Social differences | Ignored or suppressed | Negotiated peacefully |
| Dignity and freedom | No legal and moral force | Principle recognised |
| Citizens | Subjects | Citizens who complain and demand |
Practice questions
- 1State one condition for democracy to accommodate social diversity.
- 2What is the basis of democracy according to the chapter, regarding respect?
- 3What transformation do complaints about democracy show?
- 4Why is democracy better than other regimes in dealing with social differences?
- 5Explain how democracy strengthens the claims of disadvantaged castes.
- 6What does “the examination of democracy never gets over” mean?
- 7Explain the two conditions that Sri Lanka’s example teaches for accommodating diversity.
- 8Cause and result: how does recognising the principle of dignity help women and weaker castes struggle for equality?
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1Majority must work with the minority, or: majority rule must not become rule by a majority community.
- 2The passion for respect and freedom.
- 3From subjects into citizens who are aware and critical of power holders.
- 4It gives a peaceful procedure for competition and negotiation, while others often ignore or suppress differences.
- 5It recognises equal status and opportunity as a principle, so atrocities lack moral and legal foundation.
- 6As democracy passes one test, people raise higher expectations and a new test begins.
- 7(1) Majority works with minority; opinions are not permanent. (2) Majority rule must not become rule by a majority religious, racial or linguistic community.
- 8Once the principle is accepted, unequal treatment loses legal and moral backing and it is easier to fight it.