Read the following scenario and answer the questions that follow:
In the country of Seralia, the top 20% of the population controls 62% of the national income, while the bottom 20% receives just 2.8%. The country holds regular elections and people can vote freely. However, the ruling party, which belongs to the dominant ethnic group, has consistently passed laws that favour its own community and made it practically impossible for members of other ethnic groups to ever form a government.
(i) Name the economic phenomenon visible in Seralia despite it being a democracy. (1 mark)
(ii) Which specific condition required for democracy to accommodate social diversity is being violated in Seralia? (1 mark)
(iii) Explain why political equality in Seralia has not translated into social or economic equality, and what risk this poses to its democracy. (2 marks)
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:21 · grounding rag
Model Answer
(i) The economic phenomenon visible in Seralia is economic inequality — the top 20% controls 62% of national income while the bottom 20% receives only 2.8%, showing a highly disproportionate distribution of wealth.
(ii) The condition being violated is: rule by majority must not become rule by majority community (based on religion, ethnicity, race, etc.). Every citizen must have a chance of being in the majority at some point; since Seralia bars other ethnic groups from forming a government, this condition is broken.
(iii) Seralia has political equality (one person, one vote) but democracy is not simply majority rule — it requires that different groups can form a majority. Here, the dominant ethnic group permanently controls power and passes laws favouring itself, excluding minorities economically and politically. This poses the risk that democracy becomes unaccommodative, eroding legitimacy and potentially leading to social conflict or breakdown of democratic order.
Source: Outcomes of Democracy — Accommodation of Social Diversity & Economic Outcomes, Chapter 5
---
Explanation
- (i) Directly mirrors Table 2 data in the passage (South Africa/Brazil pattern). Use the term "economic inequality."
- (ii) Quote/paraphrase the textbook's second condition precisely: majority rule must not become majority community rule; barring a group from ever being in majority ends democratic accommodation.
- (iii) Link political equality → persistent economic disparity → risk to democracy. The textbook explicitly says democracies don't appear very successful in reducing economic inequalities, and that ethnic majority domination makes democracy cease to be accommodative — both points are expected here.