question_answer

Give arguments to support or oppose the following assertions:

(i) Industrialised countries can afford democracy but the poor need dictatorship to become rich.

(ii) Democracy can't reduce inequality of incomes between different citizens.

(iii) Government in poor countries should spend less on poverty reduction, health, education and spend more on industries and infrastructure.

(iv) In democracy all citizens have one vote, which means that there is absence of any domination and conflict.

Answer:

(i) No, we do not agree with the statement, because the nature and scope of democracy is not confined or limited to rich or industrialised countries only. Democracy provides accountable, representative, responsible and legitimate government to the people.

It also tries to accommodate social differences and promote economic growth, which a dictatorship cannot.

Hence, a poor country can also afford democracy for popular government and economic growth.

(ii) Again we don't agree with the statement that democracy can't reduce inequality of incomes between different citizens. But democracy can reduce the economic inequality by ensuring equal distribution of wealth and equal opportunities to all.

(iii) No, we don't agree with this statement also, poverty is one of the social challenges which democracy has to accommodate; so poor countries should spend more to check poverty.

Besides, food clothing health and education are the basic needs of the people and it is the duty of the government to provide these facilities to the people.

(iv) Yes, we do agree with this statement because, democracy stands for "political equality and guarantees Universal Adult Franchise" "Universal Adult franchise" gives right to vote to every adult citizen of the country.

Hence, there is no chance of political domination and conflict.