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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.