Outcomes of Democracy

"Democratic government can apparently be less efficient than a non-democratic government. This happens because a nondemocratic government does not need to arrive at consensus among a diverse set of people.

1.0Introduction

What does democracy do? Or what outcomes can we reasonably expect of democracy? Also, does democracy fulfil these expectations in real life? We begin by thinking about how to assess the outcomes of democracy. After some clarity on how to think on this subject, we proceed to look at the expected and actual outcomes of democracy in various respects: quality of government, economic well-being, inequality, social differences and conflict and finally freedom and dignity.

2.0How 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.

Are these expectations realised under democracies? When we talk to people around us, most of them support democracy against other alternatives, such as rule by a monarch or military or religious leaders. But not so many of them would be satisfied with the democracy in practice. So, we face a 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 the outcomes of democracy. Do we prefer democracy only for moral reasons? Or are there some prudential reasons to support democracy too?

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.

But is there something that we can expect from every democracy, just because it is 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 in a democracy. The first step towards thinking carefully about the outcomes of democracy is to recognise that democracy is just a form of government. It can only create conditions for achieving something. The citizens must take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals. Let us examine some of the things we can reasonably expect from democracy and examine the record of democracy.

Is democracy all about coping with multiple pressures and accommodating diverse demands?

Even though democracy is accompanied by many pressures and demands from everywhere the decisions are being taken by consensus and all people opinions are also respected. And different regions, religions, castes, beliefs and climates of varying capacity bring different kind of pressures in every current minute. Democracy should answer all these problems to satisfy all sections of people. Still, Democracy is the best form of government for ages. It gives importance to the voice of all sections of society. It pressurizes the sitting government for well being of all people.

3.0Accountable, responsive, and legitimate government

There 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.

Before we go into this question, we face another common question: Is the democratic government efficient? Is it effective?

Some people think that democracy produces less effective government. It is, of course, true that non-democratic rulers do not have to bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majorities and public opinion. So, they can be very quick and efficient in decision making and implementation. Democracy is based on the idea of deliberation and negotiation. So, some delay is bound to take place. Does that make democratic government inefficient?

Let us think in terms of costs. Imagine a government that may take decisions very fast. But it may take decisions that are not accepted by the people and may therefore face problems. In contrast, the democratic government will take more time to follow procedures before arriving at a decision. But because it has followed procedures, its decisions may be both more acceptable to the people and more effective. So, the cost of time that democracy pays are perhaps worth it.

Now look at the other side. Democracy ensures that decision making will be based on norms and procedures. So, 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 trying to find out the outcomes of democracy, it is right to expect democracy to produce a government that follows procedures and is accountable to the people. We can also expect that the democratic government develops mechanisms for citizens to hold the government accountable and mechanisms for citizens to take part in decision making whenever they think fit.

If you wanted to measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome, you would look for the following practices and institutions: regular, free, and fair elections; open public debate on major policies and legislations; and citizens' right to information about the government and its functioning. The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this. Democracies have had greater success in setting up regular and free elections and in setting up conditions for open public debate. But most democracies fall short of elections that provide a fair chance to everyone and in subjecting every decision to public debate. Democratic governments do not have a very good record when it comes to sharing information with citizens. All one can say in favour of democratic regimes is that they are much better than any non-democratic regime in these respects.

In substantive terms it may be reasonable to expect from democracy a government that is attentive to the needs and demands of the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies is not impressive on these two counts. 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 this evil. At the same time, there is nothing to show that non-democracies are less corrupt or more sensitive to the people.

There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legitimate government. It may be slow, less efficient, not always very responsive or clean.

But a democratic government is people's own government. That is why there is an overwhelming support for the idea of democracy all over the world. As the accompanying evidence from South Asia shows, the support exists in countries with democratic regimes as well as countries without democratic regimes.

People wish to be ruled by representatives elected by them. They also believe that democracy is suitable for their country. Democracy's ability to generate its own support is itself an outcome that cannot be ignored.

Very few doubt the suitability of democracy for their own country How suitable is democracy for your country?

Overwhelming support for democracy Those who agree with the rule of leaders elected by the people

4.0Economic growth and development

These cartoons tell us about the disparities between the rich and poor.

• Should the gains of economic growth be evenly distributed?
• How can the poor get a voice for a better share in a nation?
• What can the poor countries do to receive a greater share in the world's wealth?
  

Ans. 1: Of course, the gains of economic growth should be equally distributed among the citizens so as to make an economically even society. Also this would be as per one of the basis causes of democracy i.e., economic justice.

Ans. 2: The poor can get a voice for a better share in a nation only when this group is given proper representation and chances to participate in the decision making.

Ans. 3: The poorer countries should get united to fight for the cause. Only then, they will be able to get their share. At the same time, they will have to take initiatives to strengthen their internal democracy and exploit their own available natural resources.

If democracies are expected to produce good governments, then is it not fair to expect that they would also produce development? Evidence shows that in practice, many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.

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. As economic development depends on several factors: country's population size, global situation, cooperation from other countries, economic priorities adopted by the country, etc. 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.

5.0Reduction of inequality and poverty

Perhaps more than development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities. Even when a country achieves economic growth, will wealth be distributed in such a way that all citizens of the country will have a share and lead a better life? Is economic growth in democracies accompanied by increased inequalities among the people? Or do democracies lead to a just distribution of goods and opportunities?

Democracies are based on political equality. All individuals have equal weight in electing representatives. Parallel to the process of bringing individuals into the political arena on an equal footing, we find growing economic inequalities. 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. Sometimes 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 would 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.

6.0Accommodation 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 a democracy must fulfil 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 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. If someone is barred from being in majority on the basis of birth, then the democratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

7.0Dignity 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 were historically male dominated societies. Long struggles by women have created some sensitivity today that respect to 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 unacceptability would not have legal basis because the principle of individual freedom and dignity would not have the legal and moral force there. 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. There are instances still of caste-based inequalities and atrocities, but these lack the moral and legal foundations. Perhaps it is the recognition that makes ordinary citizens value their democratic rights.

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. Most individuals today believe that their vote makes a difference to the way the government is run and to their own self-interest.

Belief in the efficacy of vote is placed above the calculus of utility

(i) The cartoon relates to inequality that women face today all over the world. This reflects insecurity to women's dignity. The sentences from this section which connect to the cartoon:

• Most societies across the world were historically male dominated societies.
• But once the principle is recognised, it becomes easier for women to wage a struggle against what is now unacceptable legally and morally.

(ii) The graph shows that even after many complaints against it, democracy has been the most acclaimed form of government in the South Asian nations. The sentence from this section which connects to the graph:

• Most individuals today believe that their vote makes a difference to the way the government is run and to their own self-interest.

8.0Glossary

• Outcome - Result, consequences or output.
• Characteristics of Democracy - Promotes equality, enhances the dignity of the individual, improves the quality of decision making, provides methods to resolve conflicts, accommodates correct mistakes.
• Alternative forms of government than democracy - Monarchy military rule by religious leaders.
• Elements/constituents of democracy - Formal constitution, election, political parties, constitutional rights.
• Monarchy - The government ruled by the monarch or king of the country i.e., monarch or king is the head of the country.
• Dignity - The word denotes privileged position, honourable rank or importance given to any particular post or personating.
• Outcome of democracy - Political equality and political justice social equality and social justice, economic equality and economic justice, dignity to the individual.
• Measures for democratic outcome - Regular free and fair elections, open public debate on major policies, right to information given to the people.
• Economic Development - It refers to the growth advancement of the country in the way of providing better facilities and services to the individual.
• Transparency - Right or means to examine the process of decision making.
• Accountable - Responsible, answerable, legitimate to the individual / post and their needs and expectations.
• Poverty - It is a socio economic phenomenon which in general terms is the denial of opportunities to lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living.
• Inequality - Absence of equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal status at any level, social economic or political is known as inequality.
• Measures to sustain democracy -

• Unity in diversity
• Historical background of the country.
• Feeling of nationalism and patriotism
• peaceful co-existence peaceful co-existence
• Non-alignment
• International peace and understanding

• Civil Liberties - These are privileges or rights thought to be valuable in themselves and important for the functioning of democratic.