What outcomes can one reasonably expect of democracies?

INTRODUCTION : 
Now it is a proved fact that Democracy is the best form of government so far. Still democracy is facing several kinds of problems but generally it is capable of accommodation and adjustments. The democracy too like any other form of governance have certain good and evil features. In this topic we will study how the democratic government is beneficial for its citizens and what kind of problems country faces because of this kind of set up. In a democracy people blame the government for various failures but at the same time want that it should prevail in the country. Thus democracy is always at the test, as it keeps on facing several challenges. We will study that if democracy prevails how it will affect the citizens of the country.

How do we assess democracy’s outcomes? 
    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; and
    ·    Allows room to correct mistakes.

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 prudential reasons.

COMMON FEATURES
    ·    formal constitutions
    ·    they hold elections
    ·    they have parties
    ·    they guarantee rights of citizens

DIFFERENT FEATURES
    ·    in terms of their social situations
    ·    their economic achievements
    ·    their cultures
    ·    out 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.

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 and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals.

 

What outcomes can one reasonably expect of democracies?

INTRODUCTION : 
Now it is a proved fact that Democracy is the best form of government so far. Still democracy is facing several kinds of problems but generally it is capable of accommodation and adjustments. The democracy too like any other form of governance have certain good and evil features. In this topic we will study how the democratic government is beneficial for its citizens and what kind of problems country faces because of this kind of set up. In a democracy people blame the government for various failures but at the same time want that it should prevail in the country. Thus democracy is always at the test, as it keeps on facing several challenges. We will study that if democracy prevails how it will affect the citizens of the country.

How do we assess democracy’s outcomes? 
    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; and
    ·    Allows room to correct mistakes.

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 prudential reasons.

COMMON FEATURES
    ·    formal constitutions
    ·    they hold elections
    ·    they have parties
    ·    they guarantee rights of citizens

DIFFERENT FEATURES
    ·    in terms of their social situations
    ·    their economic achievements
    ·    their cultures
    ·    out 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.

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 and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals.

 

What outcomes can one reasonably expect of democracies?

INTRODUCTION : 
Now it is a proved fact that Democracy is the best form of government so far. Still democracy is facing several kinds of problems but generally it is capable of accommodation and adjustments. The democracy too like any other form of governance have certain good and evil features. In this topic we will study how the democratic government is beneficial for its citizens and what kind of problems country faces because of this kind of set up. In a democracy people blame the government for various failures but at the same time want that it should prevail in the country. Thus democracy is always at the test, as it keeps on facing several challenges. We will study that if democracy prevails how it will affect the citizens of the country.

How do we assess democracy’s outcomes? 
    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; and
    ·    Allows room to correct mistakes.

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 prudential reasons.

COMMON FEATURES
    ·    formal constitutions
    ·    they hold elections
    ·    they have parties
    ·    they guarantee rights of citizens

DIFFERENT FEATURES
    ·    in terms of their social situations
    ·    their economic achievements
    ·    their cultures
    ·    out 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.

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 and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals.

 

What outcomes can one reasonably expect of democracies?

INTRODUCTION : 
Now it is a proved fact that Democracy is the best form of government so far. Still democracy is facing several kinds of problems but generally it is capable of accommodation and adjustments. The democracy too like any other form of governance have certain good and evil features. In this topic we will study how the democratic government is beneficial for its citizens and what kind of problems country faces because of this kind of set up. In a democracy people blame the government for various failures but at the same time want that it should prevail in the country. Thus democracy is always at the test, as it keeps on facing several challenges. We will study that if democracy prevails how it will affect the citizens of the country.

How do we assess democracy’s outcomes? 
    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; and
    ·    Allows room to correct mistakes.

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 prudential reasons.

COMMON FEATURES
    ·    formal constitutions
    ·    they hold elections
    ·    they have parties
    ·    they guarantee rights of citizens

DIFFERENT FEATURES
    ·    in terms of their social situations
    ·    their economic achievements
    ·    their cultures
    ·    out 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.

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 and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals.

 

What outcomes can one reasonably expect of democracies?

INTRODUCTION : 
Now it is a proved fact that Democracy is the best form of government so far. Still democracy is facing several kinds of problems but generally it is capable of accommodation and adjustments. The democracy too like any other form of governance have certain good and evil features. In this topic we will study how the democratic government is beneficial for its citizens and what kind of problems country faces because of this kind of set up. In a democracy people blame the government for various failures but at the same time want that it should prevail in the country. Thus democracy is always at the test, as it keeps on facing several challenges. We will study that if democracy prevails how it will affect the citizens of the country.

How do we assess democracy’s outcomes? 
    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; and
    ·    Allows room to correct mistakes.

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 prudential reasons.

COMMON FEATURES
    ·    formal constitutions
    ·    they hold elections
    ·    they have parties
    ·    they guarantee rights of citizens

DIFFERENT FEATURES
    ·    in terms of their social situations
    ·    their economic achievements
    ·    their cultures
    ·    out 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.

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 and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals.

 

What outcomes can one reasonably expect of democracies?

INTRODUCTION : 
Now it is a proved fact that Democracy is the best form of government so far. Still democracy is facing several kinds of problems but generally it is capable of accommodation and adjustments. The democracy too like any other form of governance have certain good and evil features. In this topic we will study how the democratic government is beneficial for its citizens and what kind of problems country faces because of this kind of set up. In a democracy people blame the government for various failures but at the same time want that it should prevail in the country. Thus democracy is always at the test, as it keeps on facing several challenges. We will study that if democracy prevails how it will affect the citizens of the country.

How do we assess democracy’s outcomes? 
    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; and
    ·    Allows room to correct mistakes.

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 prudential reasons.

COMMON FEATURES
    ·    formal constitutions
    ·    they hold elections
    ·    they have parties
    ·    they guarantee rights of citizens

DIFFERENT FEATURES
    ·    in terms of their social situations
    ·    their economic achievements
    ·    their cultures
    ·    out 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.

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 and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals.

 

What outcomes can one reasonably expect of democracies?

INTRODUCTION : 
Now it is a proved fact that Democracy is the best form of government so far. Still democracy is facing several kinds of problems but generally it is capable of accommodation and adjustments. The democracy too like any other form of governance have certain good and evil features. In this topic we will study how the democratic government is beneficial for its citizens and what kind of problems country faces because of this kind of set up. In a democracy people blame the government for various failures but at the same time want that it should prevail in the country. Thus democracy is always at the test, as it keeps on facing several challenges. We will study that if democracy prevails how it will affect the citizens of the country.

How do we assess democracy’s outcomes? 
    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; and
    ·    Allows room to correct mistakes.

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 prudential reasons.

COMMON FEATURES
    ·    formal constitutions
    ·    they hold elections
    ·    they have parties
    ·    they guarantee rights of citizens

DIFFERENT FEATURES
    ·    in terms of their social situations
    ·    their economic achievements
    ·    their cultures
    ·    out 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.

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 and the citizens have to take advantage of those conditions and achieve those goals.

 

Does democracy in India meet these expectations?

Accountable, responsive and legitimate government :
Accountable
·    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 is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and      expectations of the citizens.

Why do some people think that democracy produces less effective government?
·    It bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majority and public opinion.
·    So some delay is bound to take place.

The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
·   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. “The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it”.

Responsive
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.
One of the right is the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
·    This fact is often missing from a non-democratic government.

 How you would measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome?
·  You would look for the following practices and institutions:
    The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this.
    (i) regular, free and fair elections;
    (ii)    open public debate on major policies and legislations;

    (iii)    citizens’ right to information about the government and its functioning.
·    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 to the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies in not impressive on these two counts.
·    Democracy often frustrate the needs to 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.

Legitimate
·    There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legimate 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 demoracy all over the world.
·    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.

Does democracy in India meet these expectations?

Accountable, responsive and legitimate government :
Accountable
·    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 is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and      expectations of the citizens.

Why do some people think that democracy produces less effective government?
·    It bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majority and public opinion.
·    So some delay is bound to take place.

The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
·   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. “The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it”.

Responsive
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.
One of the right is the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
·    This fact is often missing from a non-democratic government.

 How you would measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome?
·  You would look for the following practices and institutions:
    The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this.
    (i) regular, free and fair elections;
    (ii)    open public debate on major policies and legislations;

    (iii)    citizens’ right to information about the government and its functioning.
·    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 to the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies in not impressive on these two counts.
·    Democracy often frustrate the needs to 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.

Legitimate
·    There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legimate 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 demoracy all over the world.
·    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.

Does democracy in India meet these expectations?

Accountable, responsive and legitimate government :
Accountable
·    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 is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and      expectations of the citizens.

Why do some people think that democracy produces less effective government?
·    It bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majority and public opinion.
·    So some delay is bound to take place.

The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
·   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. “The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it”.

Responsive
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.
One of the right is the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
·    This fact is often missing from a non-democratic government.

 How you would measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome?
·  You would look for the following practices and institutions:
    The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this.
    (i) regular, free and fair elections;
    (ii)    open public debate on major policies and legislations;

    (iii)    citizens’ right to information about the government and its functioning.
·    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 to the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies in not impressive on these two counts.
·    Democracy often frustrate the needs to 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.

Legitimate
·    There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legimate 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 demoracy all over the world.
·    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.

Does democracy in India meet these expectations?

Accountable, responsive and legitimate government :
Accountable
·    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 is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and      expectations of the citizens.

Why do some people think that democracy produces less effective government?
·    It bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majority and public opinion.
·    So some delay is bound to take place.

The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
·   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. “The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it”.

Responsive
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.
One of the right is the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
·    This fact is often missing from a non-democratic government.

 How you would measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome?
·  You would look for the following practices and institutions:
    The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this.
    (i) regular, free and fair elections;
    (ii)    open public debate on major policies and legislations;

    (iii)    citizens’ right to information about the government and its functioning.
·    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 to the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies in not impressive on these two counts.
·    Democracy often frustrate the needs to 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.

Legitimate
·    There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legimate 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 demoracy all over the world.
·    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.

Does democracy in India meet these expectations?

Accountable, responsive and legitimate government :
Accountable
·    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 is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and      expectations of the citizens.

Why do some people think that democracy produces less effective government?
·    It bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majority and public opinion.
·    So some delay is bound to take place.

The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
·   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. “The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it”.

Responsive
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.
One of the right is the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
·    This fact is often missing from a non-democratic government.

 How you would measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome?
·  You would look for the following practices and institutions:
    The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this.
    (i) regular, free and fair elections;
    (ii)    open public debate on major policies and legislations;

    (iii)    citizens’ right to information about the government and its functioning.
·    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 to the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies in not impressive on these two counts.
·    Democracy often frustrate the needs to 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.

Legitimate
·    There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legimate 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 demoracy all over the world.
·    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.

Does democracy in India meet these expectations?

Accountable, responsive and legitimate government :
Accountable
·    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 is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and      expectations of the citizens.

Why do some people think that democracy produces less effective government?
·    It bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majority and public opinion.
·    So some delay is bound to take place.

The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
·   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. “The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it”.

Responsive
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.
One of the right is the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
·    This fact is often missing from a non-democratic government.

 How you would measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome?
·  You would look for the following practices and institutions:
    The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this.
    (i) regular, free and fair elections;
    (ii)    open public debate on major policies and legislations;

    (iii)    citizens’ right to information about the government and its functioning.
·    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 to the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies in not impressive on these two counts.
·    Democracy often frustrate the needs to 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.

Legitimate
·    There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legimate 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 demoracy all over the world.
·    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.

Does democracy in India meet these expectations?

Accountable, responsive and legitimate government :
Accountable
·    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 is that it produces a government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and      expectations of the citizens.

Why do some people think that democracy produces less effective government?
·    It bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majority and public opinion.
·    So some delay is bound to take place.

The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
·   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. “The cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it”.

Responsive
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.
One of the right is the means to examine the process of decision making. This is known as transparency.
·    This fact is often missing from a non-democratic government.

 How you would measure democracies on the basis of this expected outcome?
·  You would look for the following practices and institutions:
    The actual performance of democracies shows a mixed record on this.
    (i) regular, free and fair elections;
    (ii)    open public debate on major policies and legislations;

    (iii)    citizens’ right to information about the government and its functioning.
·    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 to the people and is largely free of corruption. The record of democracies in not impressive on these two counts.
·    Democracy often frustrate the needs to 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.

Legitimate
·    There is one respect in which democratic government is certainly better than its alternatives: democratic government is legimate 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 demoracy all over the world.
·    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.

Has democracy led to development, security and dignity for the people?

Economic growth and development :
Evidence shows that in practice many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.
·    If you consider all democracies and all dictatorships 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.
·    In economics, economicdevelopment, depends on several factors
        –  country’s population size,
        –  global situation
        –  cooperation from other countries
        –  economic priorities adopted by the country.
However, 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 different 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.

Illustration 1
    When was democracy introduce in India?
Solution
    In 1950, when constitution was enforced in India.

Illustration 2
    What does political outcomes signifies?
Solution
    Accountable, responsive and legitimate government.

Illustration 3
    What is the basic element of democracy?
Solution
    Universal adult franchise.

Illustration 4
    What do you mean by social outcomes?
Solution
    Social outcomes means the benefits derived by the society due to democracy like dignity and freedom, gender equality and Ban on child labour, etc.

Reduction of inequality and poverty :
·    Perhaps more than  development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities.
·    Economic growth in demoracies are accompanied by increased inequalities among the 
      people - 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 income. 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 will like to lose their votes. 
      Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to.
·    The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more thanhalf of its population live in poverty. People in several poor countries        are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Accommodation of Social Diversity :
1. Democracies accommodates various social divisions. For example: Belgium has 
successfully negotiated difference among ethnic populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosing or violent.
2. 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 outcomes. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences.
3.    Abillity to handle social difference, 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:
(a)  It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that government function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinion are not permanent.
(b)    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 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 demoratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

Dignity 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 individials 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. Democracies which have been built for long on the basis is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.

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 not unaccetpable 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.

 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.

Has democracy led to development, security and dignity for the people?

Economic growth and development :
Evidence shows that in practice many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.
·    If you consider all democracies and all dictatorships 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.
·    In economics, economicdevelopment, depends on several factors
        –  country’s population size,
        –  global situation
        –  cooperation from other countries
        –  economic priorities adopted by the country.
However, 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 different 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.

Illustration 1
    When was democracy introduce in India?
Solution
    In 1950, when constitution was enforced in India.

Illustration 2
    What does political outcomes signifies?
Solution
    Accountable, responsive and legitimate government.

Illustration 3
    What is the basic element of democracy?
Solution
    Universal adult franchise.

Illustration 4
    What do you mean by social outcomes?
Solution
    Social outcomes means the benefits derived by the society due to democracy like dignity and freedom, gender equality and Ban on child labour, etc.

Reduction of inequality and poverty :
·    Perhaps more than  development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities.
·    Economic growth in demoracies are accompanied by increased inequalities among the 
      people - 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 income. 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 will like to lose their votes. 
      Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to.
·    The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more thanhalf of its population live in poverty. People in several poor countries        are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Accommodation of Social Diversity :
1. Democracies accommodates various social divisions. For example: Belgium has 
successfully negotiated difference among ethnic populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosing or violent.
2. 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 outcomes. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences.
3.    Abillity to handle social difference, 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:
(a)  It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that government function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinion are not permanent.
(b)    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 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 demoratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

Dignity 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 individials 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. Democracies which have been built for long on the basis is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.

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 not unaccetpable 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.

 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.

Has democracy led to development, security and dignity for the people?

Economic growth and development :
Evidence shows that in practice many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.
·    If you consider all democracies and all dictatorships 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.
·    In economics, economicdevelopment, depends on several factors
        –  country’s population size,
        –  global situation
        –  cooperation from other countries
        –  economic priorities adopted by the country.
However, 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 different 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.

Illustration 1
    When was democracy introduce in India?
Solution
    In 1950, when constitution was enforced in India.

Illustration 2
    What does political outcomes signifies?
Solution
    Accountable, responsive and legitimate government.

Illustration 3
    What is the basic element of democracy?
Solution
    Universal adult franchise.

Illustration 4
    What do you mean by social outcomes?
Solution
    Social outcomes means the benefits derived by the society due to democracy like dignity and freedom, gender equality and Ban on child labour, etc.

Reduction of inequality and poverty :
·    Perhaps more than  development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities.
·    Economic growth in demoracies are accompanied by increased inequalities among the 
      people - 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 income. 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 will like to lose their votes. 
      Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to.
·    The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more thanhalf of its population live in poverty. People in several poor countries        are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Accommodation of Social Diversity :
1. Democracies accommodates various social divisions. For example: Belgium has 
successfully negotiated difference among ethnic populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosing or violent.
2. 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 outcomes. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences.
3.    Abillity to handle social difference, 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:
(a)  It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that government function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinion are not permanent.
(b)    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 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 demoratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

Dignity 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 individials 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. Democracies which have been built for long on the basis is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.

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 not unaccetpable 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.

 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.

Has democracy led to development, security and dignity for the people?

Economic growth and development :
Evidence shows that in practice many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.
·    If you consider all democracies and all dictatorships 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.
·    In economics, economicdevelopment, depends on several factors
        –  country’s population size,
        –  global situation
        –  cooperation from other countries
        –  economic priorities adopted by the country.
However, 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 different 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.

Illustration 1
    When was democracy introduce in India?
Solution
    In 1950, when constitution was enforced in India.

Illustration 2
    What does political outcomes signifies?
Solution
    Accountable, responsive and legitimate government.

Illustration 3
    What is the basic element of democracy?
Solution
    Universal adult franchise.

Illustration 4
    What do you mean by social outcomes?
Solution
    Social outcomes means the benefits derived by the society due to democracy like dignity and freedom, gender equality and Ban on child labour, etc.

Reduction of inequality and poverty :
·    Perhaps more than  development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities.
·    Economic growth in demoracies are accompanied by increased inequalities among the 
      people - 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 income. 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 will like to lose their votes. 
      Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to.
·    The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more thanhalf of its population live in poverty. People in several poor countries        are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Accommodation of Social Diversity :
1. Democracies accommodates various social divisions. For example: Belgium has 
successfully negotiated difference among ethnic populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosing or violent.
2. 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 outcomes. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences.
3.    Abillity to handle social difference, 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:
(a)  It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that government function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinion are not permanent.
(b)    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 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 demoratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

Dignity 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 individials 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. Democracies which have been built for long on the basis is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.

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 not unaccetpable 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.

 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.

Has democracy led to development, security and dignity for the people?

Economic growth and development :
Evidence shows that in practice many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.
·    If you consider all democracies and all dictatorships 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.
·    In economics, economicdevelopment, depends on several factors
        –  country’s population size,
        –  global situation
        –  cooperation from other countries
        –  economic priorities adopted by the country.
However, 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 different 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.

Illustration 1
    When was democracy introduce in India?
Solution
    In 1950, when constitution was enforced in India.

Illustration 2
    What does political outcomes signifies?
Solution
    Accountable, responsive and legitimate government.

Illustration 3
    What is the basic element of democracy?
Solution
    Universal adult franchise.

Illustration 4
    What do you mean by social outcomes?
Solution
    Social outcomes means the benefits derived by the society due to democracy like dignity and freedom, gender equality and Ban on child labour, etc.

Reduction of inequality and poverty :
·    Perhaps more than  development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities.
·    Economic growth in demoracies are accompanied by increased inequalities among the 
      people - 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 income. 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 will like to lose their votes. 
      Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to.
·    The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more thanhalf of its population live in poverty. People in several poor countries        are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Accommodation of Social Diversity :
1. Democracies accommodates various social divisions. For example: Belgium has 
successfully negotiated difference among ethnic populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosing or violent.
2. 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 outcomes. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences.
3.    Abillity to handle social difference, 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:
(a)  It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that government function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinion are not permanent.
(b)    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 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 demoratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

Dignity 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 individials 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. Democracies which have been built for long on the basis is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.

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 not unaccetpable 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.

 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.

Has democracy led to development, security and dignity for the people?

Economic growth and development :
Evidence shows that in practice many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.
·    If you consider all democracies and all dictatorships 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.
·    In economics, economicdevelopment, depends on several factors
        –  country’s population size,
        –  global situation
        –  cooperation from other countries
        –  economic priorities adopted by the country.
However, 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 different 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.

Illustration 1
    When was democracy introduce in India?
Solution
    In 1950, when constitution was enforced in India.

Illustration 2
    What does political outcomes signifies?
Solution
    Accountable, responsive and legitimate government.

Illustration 3
    What is the basic element of democracy?
Solution
    Universal adult franchise.

Illustration 4
    What do you mean by social outcomes?
Solution
    Social outcomes means the benefits derived by the society due to democracy like dignity and freedom, gender equality and Ban on child labour, etc.

Reduction of inequality and poverty :
·    Perhaps more than  development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities.
·    Economic growth in demoracies are accompanied by increased inequalities among the 
      people - 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 income. 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 will like to lose their votes. 
      Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to.
·    The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more thanhalf of its population live in poverty. People in several poor countries        are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Accommodation of Social Diversity :
1. Democracies accommodates various social divisions. For example: Belgium has 
successfully negotiated difference among ethnic populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosing or violent.
2. 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 outcomes. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences.
3.    Abillity to handle social difference, 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:
(a)  It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that government function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinion are not permanent.
(b)    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 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 demoratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

Dignity 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 individials 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. Democracies which have been built for long on the basis is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.

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 not unaccetpable 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.

 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.

Has democracy led to development, security and dignity for the people?

Economic growth and development :
Evidence shows that in practice many democracies did not fulfil this expectation.
·    If you consider all democracies and all dictatorships 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.
·    In economics, economicdevelopment, depends on several factors
        –  country’s population size,
        –  global situation
        –  cooperation from other countries
        –  economic priorities adopted by the country.
However, 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 different 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.

Illustration 1
    When was democracy introduce in India?
Solution
    In 1950, when constitution was enforced in India.

Illustration 2
    What does political outcomes signifies?
Solution
    Accountable, responsive and legitimate government.

Illustration 3
    What is the basic element of democracy?
Solution
    Universal adult franchise.

Illustration 4
    What do you mean by social outcomes?
Solution
    Social outcomes means the benefits derived by the society due to democracy like dignity and freedom, gender equality and Ban on child labour, etc.

Reduction of inequality and poverty :
·    Perhaps more than  development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities.
·    Economic growth in demoracies are accompanied by increased inequalities among the 
      people - 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 income. 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 will like to lose their votes. 
      Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to.
·    The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more thanhalf of its population live in poverty. People in several poor countries        are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Accommodation of Social Diversity :
1. Democracies accommodates various social divisions. For example: Belgium has 
successfully negotiated difference among ethnic populations. Democracies usually develop a procedure to conduct their competition. This reduces the possibility of these tensions becoming explosing or violent.
2. 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 outcomes. Non-democratic regimes often turn a blind eye to or suppress internal social differences.
3.    Abillity to handle social difference, 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:
(a)  It is necessary to understand that democracy is not simply rule by majority opinion. The majority always needs to work with the minority so that government function to represent the general view. Majority and minority opinion are not permanent.
(b)    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 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 demoratic rule ceases to be accommodative for that person or group.

Dignity 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 individials 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. Democracies which have been built for long on the basis is not a simple matter to recognize that all individuals are equal.

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 not unaccetpable 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.

 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.

What sustains democracy in India?

Thinking about challenges : 
Serious challenges democracy faces all over the world. A challenge is a difficulty that carries within it an opportunity for progress. Once we overcome a challenge we go up to a higher level than before. Different countries face different kinds of challenges. 
1. In non-democratic government countries face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting democratic government. This involve keeping military away from controlling government and establishing a sovereign and functional state. 
2. Most of the established democracies face the challenge of expansion. This involve giving greater power to local governments, extension of federal principle to all units of the federation, inclusion of women and minority groups, etc. 
3. Deepening of Democracy : This involves strengthening of the institution and practices of democracy. This challenge takes different meanings and paths in different parts of the world. It usually means strengthening those institutions that help people' participation and control. 

Thinking about political reforms : 
All the suggestions or proposals about overcoming various challenges to democracy are called  'democracy reform' or 'political reform'. All the countries do not have the same challenges, so it cannot follow the same recipe of political reforms. 
Some crucial question need to be thought at the State and local level. So, we think of some broad guidelines that can be kept in mind while devising ways and means for political reforms in India:

1. It is very tempting to think of legal ways of reforming politics. But this temptation need to be resisted. Law has an important role to play in political reform. Carefully devised changes in law can help to discourage wrong political practices and encourage good ones. But legal constitutional changes by themselves cannot overcome challenges to democracy. Democratic reforms should be carried out mainly by political activists, parties, movement and politically conscious citizens. 
 2. Any legal change must carefully look at what results it will have on politic. Sometimes the results may be counter productive. Generally, laws that seek to ban something are not very successful in politics. Laws that give political actors incentives to do good thing have more chances of working. The best laws are those which empower people to carry out democratic reforms. 
3. The main focus of political reforms should be on ways to strengthen democratic practice. The most important concern should be to increase and improve the quality of political participation by ordinary citizen. 
4. Any proposal for political reforms should think not only about what is a good solution but also about who will implement it and how.

Redefining Democracy :
    1.    Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. 
    2.    The rulers elected by the people must take all the major decisions. 
    3.    Election must offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current ruler. 
    4.    This choice and opportunity should be available to all the people on an equal basis. 
    5.    The exercise of this choice must lead to a government limited by basic rules of constitution and citizens right 

Illustration 10     
What type of challenge is faced by a non - democratic country for democratic set - up?
Solution: 
The countries which are still not under democratic government face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting a democratic government
(a)     This involves:
 ·      Bringing down the existing non - democratic regime
 ·      Keeping military away from controlling government and 
·       Establishing a sovereign and functional state
 

What sustains democracy in India?

Thinking about challenges : 
Serious challenges democracy faces all over the world. A challenge is a difficulty that carries within it an opportunity for progress. Once we overcome a challenge we go up to a higher level than before. Different countries face different kinds of challenges. 
1. In non-democratic government countries face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting democratic government. This involve keeping military away from controlling government and establishing a sovereign and functional state. 
2. Most of the established democracies face the challenge of expansion. This involve giving greater power to local governments, extension of federal principle to all units of the federation, inclusion of women and minority groups, etc. 
3. Deepening of Democracy : This involves strengthening of the institution and practices of democracy. This challenge takes different meanings and paths in different parts of the world. It usually means strengthening those institutions that help people' participation and control. 

Thinking about political reforms : 
All the suggestions or proposals about overcoming various challenges to democracy are called  'democracy reform' or 'political reform'. All the countries do not have the same challenges, so it cannot follow the same recipe of political reforms. 
Some crucial question need to be thought at the State and local level. So, we think of some broad guidelines that can be kept in mind while devising ways and means for political reforms in India:

1. It is very tempting to think of legal ways of reforming politics. But this temptation need to be resisted. Law has an important role to play in political reform. Carefully devised changes in law can help to discourage wrong political practices and encourage good ones. But legal constitutional changes by themselves cannot overcome challenges to democracy. Democratic reforms should be carried out mainly by political activists, parties, movement and politically conscious citizens. 
 2. Any legal change must carefully look at what results it will have on politic. Sometimes the results may be counter productive. Generally, laws that seek to ban something are not very successful in politics. Laws that give political actors incentives to do good thing have more chances of working. The best laws are those which empower people to carry out democratic reforms. 
3. The main focus of political reforms should be on ways to strengthen democratic practice. The most important concern should be to increase and improve the quality of political participation by ordinary citizen. 
4. Any proposal for political reforms should think not only about what is a good solution but also about who will implement it and how.

Redefining Democracy :
    1.    Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. 
    2.    The rulers elected by the people must take all the major decisions. 
    3.    Election must offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current ruler. 
    4.    This choice and opportunity should be available to all the people on an equal basis. 
    5.    The exercise of this choice must lead to a government limited by basic rules of constitution and citizens right 

Illustration 10     
What type of challenge is faced by a non - democratic country for democratic set - up?
Solution: 
The countries which are still not under democratic government face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting a democratic government
(a)     This involves:
 ·      Bringing down the existing non - democratic regime
 ·      Keeping military away from controlling government and 
·       Establishing a sovereign and functional state
 

What sustains democracy in India?

Thinking about challenges : 
Serious challenges democracy faces all over the world. A challenge is a difficulty that carries within it an opportunity for progress. Once we overcome a challenge we go up to a higher level than before. Different countries face different kinds of challenges. 
1. In non-democratic government countries face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting democratic government. This involve keeping military away from controlling government and establishing a sovereign and functional state. 
2. Most of the established democracies face the challenge of expansion. This involve giving greater power to local governments, extension of federal principle to all units of the federation, inclusion of women and minority groups, etc. 
3. Deepening of Democracy : This involves strengthening of the institution and practices of democracy. This challenge takes different meanings and paths in different parts of the world. It usually means strengthening those institutions that help people' participation and control. 

Thinking about political reforms : 
All the suggestions or proposals about overcoming various challenges to democracy are called  'democracy reform' or 'political reform'. All the countries do not have the same challenges, so it cannot follow the same recipe of political reforms. 
Some crucial question need to be thought at the State and local level. So, we think of some broad guidelines that can be kept in mind while devising ways and means for political reforms in India:

1. It is very tempting to think of legal ways of reforming politics. But this temptation need to be resisted. Law has an important role to play in political reform. Carefully devised changes in law can help to discourage wrong political practices and encourage good ones. But legal constitutional changes by themselves cannot overcome challenges to democracy. Democratic reforms should be carried out mainly by political activists, parties, movement and politically conscious citizens. 
 2. Any legal change must carefully look at what results it will have on politic. Sometimes the results may be counter productive. Generally, laws that seek to ban something are not very successful in politics. Laws that give political actors incentives to do good thing have more chances of working. The best laws are those which empower people to carry out democratic reforms. 
3. The main focus of political reforms should be on ways to strengthen democratic practice. The most important concern should be to increase and improve the quality of political participation by ordinary citizen. 
4. Any proposal for political reforms should think not only about what is a good solution but also about who will implement it and how.

Redefining Democracy :
    1.    Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. 
    2.    The rulers elected by the people must take all the major decisions. 
    3.    Election must offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current ruler. 
    4.    This choice and opportunity should be available to all the people on an equal basis. 
    5.    The exercise of this choice must lead to a government limited by basic rules of constitution and citizens right 

Illustration 10     
What type of challenge is faced by a non - democratic country for democratic set - up?
Solution: 
The countries which are still not under democratic government face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting a democratic government
(a)     This involves:
 ·      Bringing down the existing non - democratic regime
 ·      Keeping military away from controlling government and 
·       Establishing a sovereign and functional state
 

What sustains democracy in India?

Thinking about challenges : 
Serious challenges democracy faces all over the world. A challenge is a difficulty that carries within it an opportunity for progress. Once we overcome a challenge we go up to a higher level than before. Different countries face different kinds of challenges. 
1. In non-democratic government countries face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting democratic government. This involve keeping military away from controlling government and establishing a sovereign and functional state. 
2. Most of the established democracies face the challenge of expansion. This involve giving greater power to local governments, extension of federal principle to all units of the federation, inclusion of women and minority groups, etc. 
3. Deepening of Democracy : This involves strengthening of the institution and practices of democracy. This challenge takes different meanings and paths in different parts of the world. It usually means strengthening those institutions that help people' participation and control. 

Thinking about political reforms : 
All the suggestions or proposals about overcoming various challenges to democracy are called  'democracy reform' or 'political reform'. All the countries do not have the same challenges, so it cannot follow the same recipe of political reforms. 
Some crucial question need to be thought at the State and local level. So, we think of some broad guidelines that can be kept in mind while devising ways and means for political reforms in India:

1. It is very tempting to think of legal ways of reforming politics. But this temptation need to be resisted. Law has an important role to play in political reform. Carefully devised changes in law can help to discourage wrong political practices and encourage good ones. But legal constitutional changes by themselves cannot overcome challenges to democracy. Democratic reforms should be carried out mainly by political activists, parties, movement and politically conscious citizens. 
 2. Any legal change must carefully look at what results it will have on politic. Sometimes the results may be counter productive. Generally, laws that seek to ban something are not very successful in politics. Laws that give political actors incentives to do good thing have more chances of working. The best laws are those which empower people to carry out democratic reforms. 
3. The main focus of political reforms should be on ways to strengthen democratic practice. The most important concern should be to increase and improve the quality of political participation by ordinary citizen. 
4. Any proposal for political reforms should think not only about what is a good solution but also about who will implement it and how.

Redefining Democracy :
    1.    Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. 
    2.    The rulers elected by the people must take all the major decisions. 
    3.    Election must offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current ruler. 
    4.    This choice and opportunity should be available to all the people on an equal basis. 
    5.    The exercise of this choice must lead to a government limited by basic rules of constitution and citizens right 

Illustration 10     
What type of challenge is faced by a non - democratic country for democratic set - up?
Solution: 
The countries which are still not under democratic government face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting a democratic government
(a)     This involves:
 ·      Bringing down the existing non - democratic regime
 ·      Keeping military away from controlling government and 
·       Establishing a sovereign and functional state
 

What sustains democracy in India?

Thinking about challenges : 
Serious challenges democracy faces all over the world. A challenge is a difficulty that carries within it an opportunity for progress. Once we overcome a challenge we go up to a higher level than before. Different countries face different kinds of challenges. 
1. In non-democratic government countries face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting democratic government. This involve keeping military away from controlling government and establishing a sovereign and functional state. 
2. Most of the established democracies face the challenge of expansion. This involve giving greater power to local governments, extension of federal principle to all units of the federation, inclusion of women and minority groups, etc. 
3. Deepening of Democracy : This involves strengthening of the institution and practices of democracy. This challenge takes different meanings and paths in different parts of the world. It usually means strengthening those institutions that help people' participation and control. 

Thinking about political reforms : 
All the suggestions or proposals about overcoming various challenges to democracy are called  'democracy reform' or 'political reform'. All the countries do not have the same challenges, so it cannot follow the same recipe of political reforms. 
Some crucial question need to be thought at the State and local level. So, we think of some broad guidelines that can be kept in mind while devising ways and means for political reforms in India:

1. It is very tempting to think of legal ways of reforming politics. But this temptation need to be resisted. Law has an important role to play in political reform. Carefully devised changes in law can help to discourage wrong political practices and encourage good ones. But legal constitutional changes by themselves cannot overcome challenges to democracy. Democratic reforms should be carried out mainly by political activists, parties, movement and politically conscious citizens. 
 2. Any legal change must carefully look at what results it will have on politic. Sometimes the results may be counter productive. Generally, laws that seek to ban something are not very successful in politics. Laws that give political actors incentives to do good thing have more chances of working. The best laws are those which empower people to carry out democratic reforms. 
3. The main focus of political reforms should be on ways to strengthen democratic practice. The most important concern should be to increase and improve the quality of political participation by ordinary citizen. 
4. Any proposal for political reforms should think not only about what is a good solution but also about who will implement it and how.

Redefining Democracy :
    1.    Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. 
    2.    The rulers elected by the people must take all the major decisions. 
    3.    Election must offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current ruler. 
    4.    This choice and opportunity should be available to all the people on an equal basis. 
    5.    The exercise of this choice must lead to a government limited by basic rules of constitution and citizens right 

Illustration 10     
What type of challenge is faced by a non - democratic country for democratic set - up?
Solution: 
The countries which are still not under democratic government face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting a democratic government
(a)     This involves:
 ·      Bringing down the existing non - democratic regime
 ·      Keeping military away from controlling government and 
·       Establishing a sovereign and functional state
 

What sustains democracy in India?

Thinking about challenges : 
Serious challenges democracy faces all over the world. A challenge is a difficulty that carries within it an opportunity for progress. Once we overcome a challenge we go up to a higher level than before. Different countries face different kinds of challenges. 
1. In non-democratic government countries face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting democratic government. This involve keeping military away from controlling government and establishing a sovereign and functional state. 
2. Most of the established democracies face the challenge of expansion. This involve giving greater power to local governments, extension of federal principle to all units of the federation, inclusion of women and minority groups, etc. 
3. Deepening of Democracy : This involves strengthening of the institution and practices of democracy. This challenge takes different meanings and paths in different parts of the world. It usually means strengthening those institutions that help people' participation and control. 

Thinking about political reforms : 
All the suggestions or proposals about overcoming various challenges to democracy are called  'democracy reform' or 'political reform'. All the countries do not have the same challenges, so it cannot follow the same recipe of political reforms. 
Some crucial question need to be thought at the State and local level. So, we think of some broad guidelines that can be kept in mind while devising ways and means for political reforms in India:

1. It is very tempting to think of legal ways of reforming politics. But this temptation need to be resisted. Law has an important role to play in political reform. Carefully devised changes in law can help to discourage wrong political practices and encourage good ones. But legal constitutional changes by themselves cannot overcome challenges to democracy. Democratic reforms should be carried out mainly by political activists, parties, movement and politically conscious citizens. 
 2. Any legal change must carefully look at what results it will have on politic. Sometimes the results may be counter productive. Generally, laws that seek to ban something are not very successful in politics. Laws that give political actors incentives to do good thing have more chances of working. The best laws are those which empower people to carry out democratic reforms. 
3. The main focus of political reforms should be on ways to strengthen democratic practice. The most important concern should be to increase and improve the quality of political participation by ordinary citizen. 
4. Any proposal for political reforms should think not only about what is a good solution but also about who will implement it and how.

Redefining Democracy :
    1.    Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. 
    2.    The rulers elected by the people must take all the major decisions. 
    3.    Election must offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current ruler. 
    4.    This choice and opportunity should be available to all the people on an equal basis. 
    5.    The exercise of this choice must lead to a government limited by basic rules of constitution and citizens right 

Illustration 10     
What type of challenge is faced by a non - democratic country for democratic set - up?
Solution: 
The countries which are still not under democratic government face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting a democratic government
(a)     This involves:
 ·      Bringing down the existing non - democratic regime
 ·      Keeping military away from controlling government and 
·       Establishing a sovereign and functional state
 

What sustains democracy in India?

Thinking about challenges : 
Serious challenges democracy faces all over the world. A challenge is a difficulty that carries within it an opportunity for progress. Once we overcome a challenge we go up to a higher level than before. Different countries face different kinds of challenges. 
1. In non-democratic government countries face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting democratic government. This involve keeping military away from controlling government and establishing a sovereign and functional state. 
2. Most of the established democracies face the challenge of expansion. This involve giving greater power to local governments, extension of federal principle to all units of the federation, inclusion of women and minority groups, etc. 
3. Deepening of Democracy : This involves strengthening of the institution and practices of democracy. This challenge takes different meanings and paths in different parts of the world. It usually means strengthening those institutions that help people' participation and control. 

Thinking about political reforms : 
All the suggestions or proposals about overcoming various challenges to democracy are called  'democracy reform' or 'political reform'. All the countries do not have the same challenges, so it cannot follow the same recipe of political reforms. 
Some crucial question need to be thought at the State and local level. So, we think of some broad guidelines that can be kept in mind while devising ways and means for political reforms in India:

1. It is very tempting to think of legal ways of reforming politics. But this temptation need to be resisted. Law has an important role to play in political reform. Carefully devised changes in law can help to discourage wrong political practices and encourage good ones. But legal constitutional changes by themselves cannot overcome challenges to democracy. Democratic reforms should be carried out mainly by political activists, parties, movement and politically conscious citizens. 
 2. Any legal change must carefully look at what results it will have on politic. Sometimes the results may be counter productive. Generally, laws that seek to ban something are not very successful in politics. Laws that give political actors incentives to do good thing have more chances of working. The best laws are those which empower people to carry out democratic reforms. 
3. The main focus of political reforms should be on ways to strengthen democratic practice. The most important concern should be to increase and improve the quality of political participation by ordinary citizen. 
4. Any proposal for political reforms should think not only about what is a good solution but also about who will implement it and how.

Redefining Democracy :
    1.    Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. 
    2.    The rulers elected by the people must take all the major decisions. 
    3.    Election must offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current ruler. 
    4.    This choice and opportunity should be available to all the people on an equal basis. 
    5.    The exercise of this choice must lead to a government limited by basic rules of constitution and citizens right 

Illustration 10     
What type of challenge is faced by a non - democratic country for democratic set - up?
Solution: 
The countries which are still not under democratic government face the foundational challenge of making the transition to democracy and then instituting a democratic government
(a)     This involves:
 ·      Bringing down the existing non - democratic regime
 ·      Keeping military away from controlling government and 
·       Establishing a sovereign and functional state
 

Related Chapter Name

Chapter 1: Power Sharing
Chapter 2: Federalism
Chapter 3: Democracy and Diversity
Chapter 4: Gender Religion and Caste
Chapter 6: Political parties
Chapter 7: Outcomes of Democracy
Chapter 8: Challenges to Democracy