Analysis Of "Democracy As A Universal Value" By Amartya Sen

In his article, Democracy as a Universal Value, Amartya Sen asserts that democracy is a universal value. In order to develop his argument Sen needs to state his definition of democracy and define what he means by universal value. In the course of Sen's argument he gives his view of the relationship between democracy and the economy. He then defends his view of democracy as a universal value against a main argument that deals with cultural differences between regions.

Amartya Sen uses a maximum definition of democracy. Sen believes that a democracy has more qualities than just rule by the majority. "Democracy is a demanding system, and not just a mechanical condition (like majority rule) taken in isolation" (Sen 5). Sen believes that democracies must have fair elections along with the guaranteed protection of freedoms and liberties. He states, "Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment" (5). Sen asserts that elections can be defective and unfair if they are held in the absence of freedoms that allow opposing sides to present their views and allow the electorate to hear them and discuss their opinions. When democracy is practiced properly, Sen believes there are three different ways that it can enrich the lives of its citizens. "First, political freedom is a part of human freedom in general, and exercising civil and political rights is a crucial part of good lives of individuals as social beings" (5). Second, democracy increases the level of government acknowledgement that people get "in expressing and supporting their claims to political attention" (5). Democracy gives people the power to keep their government responsible and accountable. Third, the practice of democracy requires public discussion and exchange of information, views, and analyses; this exchange of information helps a society form its values and priorities (5).

Sen considers something a universal value if "people anywhere may have reason to see it as valuable" (6). Some people have argued that democracy is not a universal value because not everyone agrees that democracy is valuable and important. However, according to Sen, complete, unanimous approval by all people is not needed for something to be considered a universal value. Using this definition Sen successfully defends his claim that democracy is a universal value, despite the fact that some people may not agree on the value of democracy.

In his argument on the universal value of democracy Amartya Sen discusses the relationship between democracy and economic development. He notes that it is often claimed that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development than democratic ones. Sen disagrees with this claim. He asserts that this hypothesis is based on "very selective and limited information" (3). He admits that it is true that some disciplinarian states, like South Korea, Singapore, and postreform China, have had faster rates of economic growth than many less authoritarian ones, like India, Jamaica, and Costa Rica (3). However, he points out that this very selective evidence cannot be used to establish the general hypothesis that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development (3). "There is no convincing evidence that authoritarian governance and the suppression of political and civil rights are really beneficial to economic development" (3). In his defense of democracy Sen goes on to list some policies that have been found to be helpful in promoting economic development, policies like openness to competition, the use of international markets, public provision of incentives for investment and export, a high level of literacy and schooling, successful land reforms, and other social opportunities that increase participation in the process of economic expansion (3). Sen states that "there is no reason at all to assume that any of these policies is inconsistent with greater democracy" and need to be forcibly sustained by an authoritarian government (3). He notes that the economic development in South Korea, Singapore, and China may have been caused by the presence of these policies and not the authoritarian governments that these countries happened to have at the time. "There is overwhelming evidence to show that what is needed for generating faster economic growth is a friendlier economic climate rather than a harsher political system" (3). Nevertheless, in the end Sen concludes that based on comparative studies "the hypothesis that there is no clear relation between economic growth and democracy in either direction remains extremely plausible" (3).

Although Sen believes that there is no apparent relation between democracy and economic growth, he does believe there is a correlation between democracy and humanitarian development and the quality of people's lives. Democracy provides people with political and civil rights that "give people the opportunity to draw attention forcefully to general needs and to demand appropriate public action" (3). The exercise of these political and civil rights forces the government to respond to the needs of the people and this consequently increases the people's quality of life. Sen notes that "no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press" (4). "Even the poorest democratic countries that have faced terrible droughts or floods or other natural disasters