In contrast to previous literature, which looks at the effect of democracy on long-run growth or short-run volatility of growth, the authors examine the effect of political institutions on medium-term growth episodes.These are episodes of accelerations and decelerations that characterise the growth experience of most developing countries.
We find that the effect of political institutions on growth is asymmetric across accelerations and decelerations, and that democracies do not necessarily outperform autocracies in a growth acceleration episode, though they are likely to prevent large growth collapses.
When the authors disaggregate the type of autocracy, they find that party-based autocracies outperform democracies in growth acceleration episodes, though they do not limit the fall in the magnitude in growth deceleration episodes in comparison to democracies.
In theory, democracy is the best form of government. It is the government of the people as distinguished from the government of an individual or of a class of people. It makes all the citizens interested in their country by giving them a voice in legislation. It gives them a feeling of importance and a sense of responsibility. It thus gives a meaning to their personality.
Another merit of democracy is that it is less liable to revolution than other forms of government. Since people themselves elect the members of government the need of a revolution does not arise. In additions to this, a democratic government usually guarantees freedom of thought and speech.
This twofold freedom is a very great advantage as it enables the individual to grow freely. Democracy thus offers the most favorable atmosphere for the development of the human personality.,
Democracy literally means the rule of the people. It has been defined as government of the people, by the people for the people. Modern democracy rests on the principle of representation. The people elect their representatives by vote.
These representatives attend the legislature and act on behalf other citizens. If the citizens are not satisfied with their representatives, they may not re-elect them in the next elections.
But democracy has its danger. The greatest of which is that it may be the rule of ignorance. “Nine peoel out of every ten", says Carlyle, “are fools" and citizens who are not sufficiently intelligent or educated are likely to commit errors of judgment in the casting of votes. The best men may this fail to get elected. Elections are usually matters of propaganda.
However, the voters in countries like Britain and America have not proved so lacking in judgment as many of the opponents of democracy would have us believe, though it is true that our own country the people, being illiterate, rarely give evidence of sound or independent judgment.
Another critic of democracy is that it is wanting in efficiency. For prompt and effective actions, unity of action is essential.
Thus, there can be no freedom of thought or speech under such asstm. Intesivece propaganda is employed, as was den s germy, to retain the sport of the people. Dictatorship, therefore by its very nature hampers the free devleoepmtn of the human personality.
It does not awe for divest of political option and belief, but tends towards political regimentations or standardizations of human beings. The greatest danger of dictatorship, however, is its partiality for war as an instrument of national aggrandizement.
Practically very dictate preaches war, partly because he is actuated by person amnion and partly because he suffers from an exaggerated anaionslism.
In contrast, dictatorship is a rigid form of government in which people are not given the liberties they could otherwise get in the democratic form of government. The head of the state is not elected by them. He takes power either by means of a military coup d’état or any other situation which is totally unfavorable for the citizens.
The status quo remains intact till people rise and strip the government of its power. It is an authoritarian form of government in which the word of the dictator is law. He imposes sanctions upon the citizens if they dare to disobey him.
However, sometimes dictatorship is not as bad as it sounds. This system has been advocated by a lot of great philosophers like John Austin. According to him, the people deliberately surrender their rights to the king in return of peace and tranquility he maintains under his rule. He makes laws without letting people have their say.
He can take critical decisions as he deems fit without any delays and uprisings in the decision making process. In this way it’s a way faster and efficient form of government as per Austin.
PowerIn dictatorship the power belongs to the dictator whereas in democracy people are the ultimate rulers.
LawsLaws in dictatorship are framed by the dictator whereas people are the lawmakers in democracy. Freedom
In democracy, people have their rights recognized in the very Constitution of their state which are called fundamental rights that can never be suspended by the government.
In dictatorship, the dictator promises no rights to his subjects.
Self-indulgenceIn democracy, people are indulged in all decisions related to economic, social, political and military affairs whereas in dictatorship who are people to decide? They just sit back and follow.
JusticeIn democracy, people can rise when justice is denied to them, where on the other hand they dare not rise against the dictator because he wouldn’t be taken to task even if he executes someone.
Overall, democracy is regarded as the purest form of government. It’s not that the public actions are not regulated in democracy. They’re also penalized for the crimes they commit. It is the most stable system under which both the ruled as well as the rulers are content.
Photos by Pixabay.com