A non-democratic government can implement a major infrastructure project in weeks, while a democratic government takes months of debate and approvals to do the same. Does this make the democratic government inefficient? Justify your answer.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:20 · grounding rag
Model Answer
No, the democratic government is not inefficient — it is more effective in the long run.
It is true that non-democratic rulers can make quick decisions without deliberation, assemblies, or public opinion. However, democracy is based on deliberation and negotiation, so some delay is natural.
This delay is worth the cost because:
- Democratic decisions follow correct procedures and norms, making them more acceptable to people.
- Democracy ensures transparency — citizens can examine how decisions were made.
- Such decisions face less resistance and are therefore more effective in implementation.
A non-democratic government may decide fast but face public rejection. Democratic government is accountable, legitimate, and people's own government — which matters more than speed.
Source: Outcomes of Democracy, Chapter 5, Democratic Politics
---
Explanation
- The examiner wants you to acknowledge the apparent drawback (slower process) and then counter it using the textbook argument about cost of time, legitimacy, transparency, and acceptability.
- Key terms to include: deliberation, transparency, accountability, legitimate government.
- Don't just say "democracy is better" — give reasons from the passage (acceptability of decisions, procedural correctness, citizens' right to examine decisions).
- Avoid writing an essay; 3 marks = 3 clear points supported by brief reasoning.