This closing chapter turns from specific themes — federalism, social division, political parties — to one general question: what does democracy actually do?
This chapter first works out HOW to judge democracy's outcomes. Then it walks five expected outcomes against the real record in turn: an accountable government, economic growth, reduced inequality, accommodation of social diversity, and the dignity and freedom of citizens.
RECAP (Class IX): five things a class once concluded make democracy better than dictatorship or any alternative. It promotes equality among citizens. It enhances the individual's dignity.
It improves the quality of decisions. It gives a method to resolve conflict. And it leaves room to correct mistakes. This chapter's project is to test whether these five expectations actually hold in democratic practice.
Most people, asked directly, support democracy over rule by a monarch, the military, or religious leaders. But far fewer are satisfied with how democracy actually works in practice.
This is the dilemma the rest of this chapter investigates — good in principle, felt to be less good in practice. Do we prefer democracy only for moral reasons? Or are there prudential reasons too?
Over a hundred countries today claim and practise some form of democracy. They share formal constitutions, hold elections, run parties, and guarantee citizens' rights.
But these democracies differ hugely in social situation, economic achievement, and culture — so what each one actually delivers differs too. This raises the chapter's real question: is there something we can expect from EVERY democracy, just because it is one?
Test an expectation before you accept it: that democracy should be able to fix any socio-economic or political problem. If it hasn't, the assumption runs, either democracy has failed, or we are not really living in one.
Democracy is only a FORM of government — it creates conditions for a goal, but citizens themselves have to take advantage of those conditions to actually reach it. When an expectation goes unmet, the reflex is to blame "democracy" itself. The corrective first step is to judge democracy on what it can reasonably be expected to deliver.
The most basic outcome democracy should produce is a government accountable to citizens, and responsive to their needs. This rests on three things: citizens must have the right to choose their rulers, control over those rulers, and — wherever possible — a say in decisions that affect them all.
Non-democratic rulers need not deliberate in assemblies or worry about majorities and public opinion. They can decide quickly.
Democracy is built on deliberation and negotiation, so some delay is bound to occur. But a fast decision the people never accept creates its own problems — a democratic decision, reached through procedure, tends to be both more acceptable and more effective. The time democracy spends on this is, on balance, worth it.
Democracy makes decision-making follow norms and procedures a citizen has the right, and the means, to examine. A citizen who wants to know whether a decision was taken correctly can find out.
This is called TRANSPARENCY — a factor often missing from non-democratic government entirely.
One margin voice in the source mocks this whole discussion as circular.
"So the best outcome of democracy is that it is a democracy! That is what we have discovered after all this mental gymnastics?"
The source does not explicitly answer this jab — it simply moves on to the legitimacy argument that follows, and lets that argument stand as its own answer. Sit with the objection before you read on.
To measure whether democracy is producing an accountable, responsive government, look for three things. Regular, free, and fair elections. Open public debate on major policy and legislation. And citizens' right to information about government and how it functions.
Actual democratic performance on this outcome is mixed. Democracies have had real success setting up regular, free elections, and conditions for open debate.
But most fall short of giving everyone a truly fair chance, and of subjecting every decision to public debate — and democratic governments keep a poor record of sharing information with citizens. The one thing that can be said for them: democratic regimes still do far better on these counts than any non-democratic one.
In substance, it is reasonable to expect a government attentive to people's needs, and largely free of corruption. The record is not impressive on either count.
Democracies often frustrate popular needs and ignore what a majority of their population is asking for, and routine corruption persists. At the same time, there is no evidence non-democracies are less corrupt, or more sensitive to their own people.
There is one respect where democratic government is certainly better than any alternative — it is LEGITIMATE government. It may be slow, less efficient, not always responsive or clean.
But a democratic government is the people's OWN government — which is exactly why there is overwhelming support for democracy worldwide. Generating its own support is itself an outcome that cannot be ignored.
SURVEY (State of Democracy in South Asia, 2007): support for democracy across South Asia is overwhelming, and holds even in countries without a democratic regime at the time.
Asked "how suitable is democracy for your country?", South Asia answered 88 per cent suitable — India 92, Bangladesh 93, Sri Lanka 92, Pakistan 84, Nepal 79. Asked whether leaders should be elected by the people, South Asia answered 94 per cent agree.
On a straight preference test — democracy, sometimes dictatorship, or doesn't matter — democracy wins everywhere except Pakistan, where "doesn't matter to me" (49 per cent) actually outweighs "democracy is preferable" (37 per cent).
WORKED EXAMPLE: Nannu, a daily-wage earner in a Delhi slum, lost his ration card and applied for a duplicate in January 2004. For three months, the local Food and Civil Supplies office simply ignored him.
He then filed a Right to Information application, asking for daily progress on his case, the names of the officials responsible, and what would follow their inaction. Within a week, an inspector visited to say his card was ready. The next day, the officer who received him offered tea, and asked him to withdraw the RTI application, since his work was already done.
What does Nannu's example actually show? What impact did his one action have on the officials involved? Work that out before you read on — the source leaves both questions open.
If democracies are expected to produce good government, is it not fair to expect them to produce development too?
Evidence shows that, in practice, many democracies do not fulfil this expectation.
TABLE 1 (Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, and Limongi, 2000): average annual economic growth, 1950–2000, by regime type. All democratic regimes: 3.95 per cent. All dictatorial regimes: 4.42 per cent.
Narrow the comparison to poor countries alone, and the gap almost vanishes — 4.28 per cent under democracy against 4.34 per cent under dictatorship.
Over the full fifty years, dictatorships show a slightly higher average growth rate than democracies. That gap is real, and worth noting — but not, by itself, a reason to reject democracy.
Economic development depends on several other factors too: population size, the global situation, cooperation from other countries, and a country's own economic priorities. The gap almost disappears among poor countries specifically — so the headline "dictatorships grow faster" figure is driven mainly by cases outside that comparison, not a general dictatorship advantage.
Overall, we cannot call democracy a GUARANTEE of economic development. But we can expect it not to lag far behind dictatorships either.
Even where a real growth-rate difference exists, democracy still stays preferable — because it carries several other positive outcomes dictatorship simply does not.
TABLE 2 (same source): share of national income held by the top 20 per cent against the bottom 20 per cent, by country. South Africa: 64.8 per cent against 2.9 per cent. Denmark: 34.5 per cent against 9.6 per cent.
All seven countries counted here are democracies — yet the degree of inequality among them varies enormously. South Africa and Brazil show extreme concentration at the top; Denmark and Hungary show far less.
Democracies are built on political equality — every individual carries equal weight in electing representatives, one person, one vote.
Running parallel to that equal political footing, most democracies also show growing ECONOMIC inequality. A small number of ultra-rich hold a disproportionate, and rising, share of wealth, while those at the bottom watch their own incomes decline.
In practice, democracies do not appear very successful at reducing economic inequality. The poor form a large share of the voter base in most democracies, and no party wants to lose their votes.
Yet elected governments do not seem nearly as keen to address poverty as that voting-bloc logic would predict. In Bangladesh, more than half the population lives in poverty; people in several poor countries now depend on richer countries even for food.
Test a syllogism before you accept it: democracy is rule by the majority; the poor are the majority; so democracy must be rule of the poor. How could this not be the case?
The chapter's own material contradicts this inference. Despite the poor forming a huge voter bloc no party wants to alienate, elected governments do not, in practice, address poverty anywhere near as well as the syllogism predicts. Being the largest voter bloc is a lever, not a guarantee.
It is a fair expectation that democracy should produce a harmonious social life. Democracies develop procedures to run competition among social groups, which reduces the chance that tension turns explosive or violent.
No society can permanently resolve every conflict among its own groups. But a society can learn to respect difference, and evolve mechanisms to negotiate it — democracy is best suited to produce exactly that outcome. Non-democratic regimes, by contrast, often just suppress internal difference instead.
Sri Lanka's own example shows democracy must meet two conditions to actually accommodate social diversity. First, democracy is not simply rule by majority OPINION — the majority must work with the minority, and majority and minority opinion must never be fixed or permanent.
Second, majority rule must never become rule by a majority COMMUNITY, fixed by religion, race, or language. In a genuine democracy, different groups can form a majority on different decisions. Democracy stays democracy only as long as every citizen has a real chance of being in the majority sometimes. Bar someone from that chance by birth, and democratic rule stops being accommodative for them.
One more margin voice challenges the whole accommodation argument: "all you are saying is that democracy ensures people do not break each other's heads. This is not harmony. Should we be happy about it?"
The source raises this question, but does not resolve it — is merely preventing violent conflict the same thing as producing genuine social harmony? Decide for yourself before you move on.
ACTIVITY: the source pairs two captioned images here, showing two different kinds of effect democratic politics can have on social division.
Take one real example for each image, and write a paragraph on the outcome of democratic politics in each situation. The source leaves both examples for you to supply.
Democracy stands far superior to any other form of government at promoting the dignity and freedom of the individual. Every person wants respect from others, and conflict often starts exactly where people feel that respect is missing.
The passion for respect and freedom is itself the basis of democracy. Democracies worldwide have recognised this principle, at least in theory — though achieved to very different degrees in different places. Recognising every individual as equal is never simple for a society built for long on subordination.
Take the dignity of women. Most societies were historically male-dominated. Long struggles by women created today's sensitivity — that respecting and treating women equally is a necessary part of a democratic society.
This does not mean women are actually always treated with respect. But once the principle is recognised, it becomes far easier for women to fight what is now legally and morally unacceptable. In a non-democratic system, that unacceptability would carry no legal basis at all.
The same pattern holds for caste inequality. Democracy in India has strengthened the claims of disadvantaged, discriminated castes to equal status and equal opportunity.
Caste-based inequality and atrocity still occur — but they now carry no moral or legal foundation. It is exactly this recognition of the underlying principle that gives ordinary citizens a reason to value their democratic rights.
What is most distinctive about democracy is that its examination never ends. As democracy passes one test, it produces another.
As people receive some of democracy's benefits, they ask for more, and want it to work even better. The fact that people complain is itself testimony to democracy's success — it shows people have gained the awareness and ability to judge power holders critically. Publicly voicing dissatisfaction is itself the sign of the democratic project's success, because it turns a person from a SUBJECT into a CITIZEN.
SURVEY (State of Democracy in South Asia, 2007): most people across South Asia believe their vote makes a real difference — to how government is run, and to their own self-interest.
South Asia overall: 65 per cent. Nepal leads at 75 per cent; Pakistan trails at 50 per cent. Belief in the vote's own power is placed above narrow self-interest, closing this chapter's own case for democracy.
EXERCISE: give arguments to support OR oppose each of four assertions. Industrialised countries can afford democracy, but poor countries need dictatorship to grow rich. Democracy cannot reduce income inequality between citizens.
Poor-country governments should spend less on poverty, health, and education, and more on industry and infrastructure. In democracy, one-person-one-vote means an absence of any domination or conflict. The source stages all four as open debate prompts — argue either side, since it resolves none of them.
CASE-FRAME: three real-shaped situations, each asking you to name the challenge to democracy present, and suggest a policy or institutional fix. A High Court orders an Orissa temple — which had kept separate entry doors for Dalits and non-Dalits — to allow entry through one door for everyone.
A large number of farmers are committing suicide across different Indian states. Following an allegation that Jammu and Kashmir police killed three civilians in a fake encounter, an enquiry is ordered. Name the challenge in each case, and suggest your own mechanism to deepen democracy in response — the source prints no intended answers.