Outcomes of Democracy — Notes

Judge democracy by what it can reasonably be expected to deliver, and compare it with non-democracies on the same outcome. Democracy creates conditions for good outcomes; whether they are achieved depends also on how citizens use their rights.

Accountable: the government answers to citizens, who can question it and vote it out. Mechanisms: regular, free and fair elections; open public debate; citizens' right to information.

Transparency: the openness that lets citizens check how, and by what procedure, a decision was taken; it discourages corruption.

Responsive: the government reacts to people's needs and demands.

Speed: democratic decisions involve deliberation and negotiation, so they are slower, but they are more acceptable and more effective, and mistakes can be corrected.

Record: good on regular elections; often weak on open public debate; governments often let people down; corruption exists, but dictatorships have no better record on corruption.

Legitimate: a democratic government is the people's own; it may be slow or inefficient, yet support for democracy stays high (surveys in South Asia and elsewhere). The lasting support democracy wins from its own people is itself one of its outcomes.

Growth: studies of many countries over long periods find that dictatorships have had a slightly higher average growth rate; the difference is small. Growth also depends on population size, the global economic situation, cooperation from other countries and the country's economic priorities. So democracy is no guarantee of growth, but there is no case for saying it holds growth back. Given its other outcomes, democracy remains preferable.

Inequality: many democracies show large and sometimes growing inequality: a small rich group earns a very large share of income, while the poorest earn little. Political equality (one person, one vote) has not produced economic equality.

Poverty: the poor are a large share of voters, yet poverty persists in many democracies: a real failure of democratic governments.

Diversity: group conflicts never vanish for good in any society. Democracy develops procedures for negotiation and peaceful competition, so tensions are less likely to turn violent. Two conditions:

1. Democracy is more than winning votes: the larger group must cooperate with minorities so that government speaks for the whole people.
2. The majority must not be a fixed community defined by religion, race or language; every citizen should have a chance of being in a majority at some time. (Warning example: Sri Lanka.)

Dignity and freedom: democracy treats every person as an equal citizen with rights. Women have used democratic rights, laws and courts to claim respect and equality; groups once treated as inferior by caste have gained a firmer footing to demand equal standing and equal chances. Discrimination has not ended, but equality is accepted in principle, which gives these claims legal and moral force.

Expectations: democracy changes people from subjects into citizens. As some needs are met, expectations rise; citizens complain when governments fall short. Such dissatisfaction is evidence that democracy is working, and democracy is a never-ending project.

Verdict: democracy is better overall; its weakest area is inequality and poverty, which citizens must keep pressing governments to improve.