“Democracy is seen to be good in principle but felt to be not so good in practice”. Support the statement with an argument.
DEMOCRACY is seen to be good in principle, but felt to be not so good in practice. This dilemma invites us to think hard about the outcomes of democracy.
- Our interest and fascination for democracy often pushes us into talking a position that democracy can address all socio-economic and political problems. If some of our expectations are not met, we start doubting if we are living in a democracy.
- Some people think that democracy produces less effective government. It is of course, true that non-democratic rulers do not have to bother about deliberation in assemblies or worry about majorities and public opinion. So, they can be very quick and efficient in decision making and implementation.
- Democracy is based on the idea of deliberation and negotiation. So, some delay is found to take place. It does not mean that democratic governments are inefficient.
- The democratic government takes more time to follow procedures before arriving at a decision. Its decisions may be both more acceptable to the people and more effective. So, the cost of time that democracy pays is perhaps worth it.
- Democracy ensures that decisions making will be based on norms and procedures. A citizen has the right to examine the process of decision making. This factor is missing in non-democratic government.
- We can also expect that the democratic government develops mechanisms for citizens to hold the government accountable and mechanisms for citizens to take part in decision making whenever they think fit.