Democracy produces Accountable, responsive and legitimate government
The most basic outcome of democracy is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and expectations of the citizens.
Democratic government can apparently be less efficient than a non-democratic government. This happens because a non-democratic government does not need to arrive at consensus among a diverse set of people. Democracy functions on the basis of deliberation and negotiation and hence decisions are often delayed. But this does not mean that a democratic government is less efficient.
Democratic government may be able to take decisions in non time. But one needs to assess if those
decisions are acceptable to the masses or are they really solving people’s problems.
A democratic government is more transparent than a non-democratic government. A citizen has the right to know the processes which were followed while taking a decision in a democratic government. Thus, a democratic government is more accountable and responsive to its citizens.
A democratic government is legitimate government because it is elected by the people. This is the reason that democratic governments are thriving in most of the countries.
Economic growth and development:
Data for the fifty years between 1950 and 2000 suggests that dictatorships have slightly higher economic growth. In most of the democracies, the economic growth is somewhat slower. But there are many democratic countries which are among the economic superpowers of the world. This shows that economic growth does not depend on the form of government only. Other factors also decide the trend of economic growth; like population size, global situation, cooperation from other countries, economic priorities of the country, etc.
When we look at several other positive outcomes; alongwith a reasonable economic growth; then democracy is always better than dictatorship.
Reduction of inequality and poverty:
Economic inequality has been increasing all over the world. In India, a larger portion of the population is poor and the number of rich people is less. Moreover, there is a large difference in the income of rich and the poor. In most of the countries, democracy has failed in reducing economic inequalities.
Democracy Accommodates social diversity:
Every society is full of diversities and conflicts are bound to happen among various sections. It is impossible to fully rule out the possibility of conflicts. Bu democracy normally develops a procedure by which there can be a healthy competition among different sections of the society. People can learn to respect the differences and learn to resolve conflicts in an amicable manner. In most of the democratic countries, social diversity is accommodated peacefully. There can be some examples where social diversity is still a big problem; like in case of Sri Lanka.
Democracy ensures Dignity, freedom and Respect of the citizens:
Democracy has succeeded in ensuring the dignity and freedom of its citizens. Let us take example of India. There are many social groups which had faced a long history of oppression. Due to democratic process, a sizeable portion of these people have been able to move up the social ladder and are in a position to assert themselves.
Equality of Women
Because of democracy, women could be able to wage a struggle for staking their claim to equality. In most of the democratic countries, women have succeeded in getting equal status in the society. This is not the case in most of the autocracies.
Caste Inequalities
Caste based inequalities had been quite predominant in India. But thanks to the democratic process, such cases have reduced to a bare minimum. People from all castes can be seen in every sphere of life.
1. Give arguments to support or oppose the following assertions:
2. Industrialised countries can afford democracy but the poor need dictatorship to become rich.Asnwer: Although examples of many countries under dictatorship suggest that economic growth can be good in such countries, yet some democracies are also in sound economic health. Many poor countries of the past have progressed under democratic rule, although the growth may have been slow. Looking at the cost benefit analysis, it can be said the even for a poor country, democracy is always a better option rather than dictatorship to strive for becoming rich.
3. Democracy can’t reduce inequality of incomes between different citizens.Asnwer: This is a true reality that inequality of incomes cannot be reduced between different citizens; no matter which type of government system is in place. Even the past experience of socialism in Russia and China suggest that it is almost impossible to create a society where everyone is equal in terms of economic power. The same holds true for democracy also.
4. Government in poor countries should spend less on poverty reduction, health, education and spend more on industries and infrastructure.Asnwer: While it is always prudent to spend on industries and infrastructure for better employment generation, the role of social security cannot be ignored. There are many people who are so poor and oppressed that they need some sort of help to improve their condition. Poverty eradication, health benefits and education schemes should always be in place for such people. A proper balance should be struck in spending on social security and on industries.
5.In democracy all citizens have one vote, which means that there is absence of any domination and conflict.Asnwer: In theory, it is true that the formula of one person one vote negates the effect of domination and conflict. But in the real world, a society can be very complex. It is a basic instinct of people or a group of people to dominate others at the very first opportunity. Similarly, conflicts are bound to arise in the society. However, democracy minimizes the effect of such tendency to a certain extentClass X Pol.Sc. Ch-7 "Outcomes of Democracy"
Democracy produces Accountable, responsive and legitimate government
The most basic outcome of democracy is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and expectations of the citizens.
Democratic government can apparently be less efficient than a non-democratic government. This happens because a non-democratic government does not need to arrive at consensus among a diverse set of people. Democracy functions on the basis of deliberation and negotiation and hence decisions are often delayed. But this does not mean that a democratic government is less efficient.
Democratic government may be able to take decisions in non time. But one needs to assess if those
decisions are acceptable to the masses or are they really solving people’s problems.
A democratic government is more transparent than a non-democratic government. A citizen has the right to know the processes which were followed while taking a decision in a democratic government. Thus, a democratic government is more accountable and responsive to its citizens.
A democratic government is legitimate government because it is elected by the people. This is the reason that democratic governments are thriving in most of the countries.
Economic growth and development:
Data for the fifty years between 1950 and 2000 suggests that dictatorships have slightly higher economic growth. In most of the democracies, the economic growth is somewhat slower. But there are many democratic countries which are among the economic superpowers of the world. This shows that economic growth does not depend on the form of government only. Other factors also decide the trend of economic growth; like population size, global situation, cooperation from other countries, economic priorities of the country, etc.
When we look at several other positive outcomes; alongwith a reasonable economic growth; then democracy is always better than dictatorship.
Reduction of inequality and poverty:
Economic inequality has been increasing all over the world. In India, a larger portion of the population is poor and the number of rich people is less. Moreover, there is a large difference in the income of rich and the poor. In most of the countries, democracy has failed in reducing economic inequalities.
Democracy Accommodates social diversity:
Every society is full of diversities and conflicts are bound to happen among various sections. It is impossible to fully rule out the possibility of conflicts. Bu democracy normally develops a procedure by which there can be a healthy competition among different sections of the society. People can learn to respect the differences and learn to resolve conflicts in an amicable manner. In most of the democratic countries, social diversity is accommodated peacefully. There can be some examples where social diversity is still a big problem; like in case of Sri Lanka.
Democracy ensures Dignity, freedom and Respect of the citizens:
Democracy has succeeded in ensuring the dignity and freedom of its citizens. Let us take example of India. There are many social groups which had faced a long history of oppression. Due to democratic process, a sizeable portion of these people have been able to move up the social ladder and are in a position to assert themselves.
Equality of Women
Because of democracy, women could be able to wage a struggle for staking their claim to equality. In most of the democratic countries, women have succeeded in getting equal status in the society. This is not the case in most of the autocracies.
Caste Inequalities
Caste based inequalities had been quite predominant in India. But thanks to the democratic process, such cases have reduced to a bare minimum. People from all castes can be seen in every sphere of life.
1. Give arguments to support or oppose the following assertions:
2. Industrialised countries can afford democracy but the poor need dictatorship to become rich.
Asnwer: Although examples of many countries under dictatorship suggest that economic growth can be good in such countries, yet some democracies are also in sound economic health. Many poor countries of the past have progressed under democratic rule, although the growth may have been slow. Looking at the cost benefit analysis, it can be said the even for a poor country, democracy is always a better option rather than dictatorship to strive for becoming rich.
3. Democracy can’t reduce inequality of incomes between different citizens.
Asnwer: This is a true reality that inequality of incomes cannot be reduced between different citizens; no matter which type of government system is in place. Even the past experience of socialism in Russia and China suggest that it is almost impossible to create a society where everyone is equal in terms of economic power. The same holds true for democracy also.
4. Government in poor countries should spend less on poverty reduction, health, education and spend more on industries and infrastructure.
Asnwer: While it is always prudent to spend on industries and infrastructure for better employment generation, the role of social security cannot be ignored. There are many people who are so poor and oppressed that they need some sort of help to improve their condition. Poverty eradication, health benefits and education schemes should always be in place for such people. A proper balance should be struck in spending on social security and on industries.
pls post answers of gender religion and caste
ReplyDelete