If we look empirically around the world, it is not necessarily true that democratic countries have better governments compared to those run by dictatorship. Although both types of governing systems have positive and negative aspects, democracy enjoys mass popularity across the word due to some of its universal characteristics that are totally missing in dictatorship. The characteristics are: freedom of expression, majority rule and minority rights, division of power, free and fair election, accountability and flexibility. Renowned sociologist Miller termed democracy as the wisest and the best form of governing system. Arab Spring is the latest example in this regard.
While dictatorship is considered as rigid, democracy believes in flexibility. Due to this nature of democracy, violence or anarchy can not take place and thus it ensures peaceful sustenance of a country. In democracy, in the event of any confusion, the government takes a cue form public consensus and solve the problem accordingly. The main power of the state lies with the people, according to democracy. For instance, couple of months back, people of Scotland raised their voices to separate their country from Britain. In this situation, to void any mass upsurge, the British government arranged a referendum. People voted in favour of staying with Britain and the matter was resolved.
Furthermore, the researchers found a selection-related benefit for democratic governments. According to their findings, it has turned out that democracies have an edge in a changing environment. In a changing environment, the democratic societies are more capable to sustain a quality of government in the long run. By contrast, if a shock like a war or economic crisis hits a country run by a dictator, even a government composed of competent officials may not be flexible enough to respond well.
In addition, researchers also found that, when a country is stable, the type of government it has does not have a major impact on its success. But in a tumultuous world, democracies are more flexible and thus more successful. During crises, people who are better suited to solve the problem are more likely to be ushered into office. Whereas in dictatorships, if we start with a person who is very capable, we are pretty likely to still be stuck with him even though he is no longer the one we would want to have in power.
However, democracy is in many ways is nothing more than a set of rules for managing conflicts. At the same time, the conflicts must be managed within certain limits and with compromises, consensus, or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. An overemphasis on one side of the equation can threaten the entire process. If groups perceive democracy as nothing more than a forum in which they can press their demands, the society can crumble from within. If the government, on the other hand, exerts excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, the society can be crushed from above.
It is therefore needless to mention that problems, demands or conflicts will be there in society and these problems or conflicts can be resolved easily if the government pursues democratic norms of flexibility.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
