Outcomes of Democracy

We value democracy for many reasons, but in the end we must ask a hard question: what does democracy actually deliver? People expect democracy to give them a government that listens, a fairer economy, less inequality, room for every group and a life of dignity. The fair way to judge democracy is to weigh it against these expectations.

The honest answer is mixed. Democracy is clearly better than its alternatives in some ways, only a little better in others, and it sometimes falls short. But even where it falls short, democracy gives people the tools to set things right. Dictatorships do not.

The first thing we expect is a government that is accountable to the people. Democracy produces this through concrete, recurring checks rather than goodwill:

• Regular, free and fair elections: the people can throw out a non-performing government at the next vote, a power citizens under a dictatorship simply do not have.
• Open public debate on major decisions and policies, so choices are examined before and after they are made.
• The right to information: citizens can ask the government to show what it is doing and why, which is itself a tool of accountability.

A democratic government is also more responsive, because between elections it must keep paying attention to people's needs and demands rather than answer only to itself.

A deeper claim is that democracy's superior virtue lies in what it calls into activity: the intelligence and character of ordinary men and women. Its strength does not come from a single gifted leader, from a band of dedicated party workers, or from strengthened executive command. It comes from drawing the ordinary citizen into public affairs, through participation, deliberation and consent. By involving people in decisions, democracy enlarges their judgment and self-respect. The process of taking part is itself a form of education in citizenship. This is exactly why democratic decisions, though slower, carry more weight than commands issued from the top.

Democracy may not always be efficient. Decisions take time, because they must follow proper procedures and carry many people along. A dictatorship can decide quickly. But this delay is the price of a careful, consultative process. Most people would rather have a government they can question than one that acts fast but answers to no one. A slower decision that many people have accepted is also more likely to be obeyed and to last.

Above all, a democratic government is a legitimate government. It may be slow and even a little corrupt, but it is the people's own government, formed by their consent. Surveys across many countries show that people still prefer democracy to any alternative and believe it is suitable for their country. This is true even in places where democracy has not delivered much. This worldwide acceptance, the sense that the system belongs to the people, is democracy's strongest and most durable result.

What about the economy? Here the record is sobering. If we compare the rates of economic growth of democracies and dictatorships over recent decades, there is no clear difference between the two. Dictatorships have, in several stretches, grown a little faster. Given this small and inconsistent gap, it is better to prefer democracy on the other things it delivers. Accountability, dignity and peaceful handling of conflict are stronger arguments for democracy than growth alone.

If economic growth is not the strong point, what about economic inequality? This exposes a sharp paradox at the heart of democracy:

• Political equality is its founding rule: every citizen has one vote, and every vote counts the same, regardless of wealth or status.
• Economic inequality persists alongside it: in most democracies a small section at the top holds a large share of national wealth and income, while those at the bottom have very little, sometimes barely enough to depend on.

In principle the poor, who are usually in the majority, could use their equal vote to change an unequal order. In practice they rarely vote as a single bloc to do so. Governments seldom act boldly enough to close the gap either. Reducing economic inequality and poverty is therefore the clearest example of democracy not yet living up to its promise. It is a real, unfinished challenge rather than a settled success.

Democracy does much better when we turn to social differences. A democracy usually develops a way to handle social divisions and conflicts peacefully. It does this by sharing power and by giving every group a voice. This means differences do not lead to violence or to the break-up of the country. The condition for this success is that a majority must work with the minority, so that rule by the majority does not become the rule of one community over the rest.

The clearest success of democracy is in promoting the dignity and freedom of the citizen. Democracy stands on the principle that every individual is equal in worth. The long struggles of women for equal treatment and of oppressed castes for self-respect have made the most progress in democracies. Democracy provides the space and the rights to fight for dignity. The same is true of freedom. The respect for individual freedom and the right to question authority are not just outcomes of democracy. They are the very basis on which it stands.

A final strength of democracy is that it allows us to judge it by its own standards. People expect democracy to keep its promises. When it does not, they have the means to express their dissatisfaction and to push for change. A democracy that falls short still carries the cure for its own failings.