Democratic govt don't have a very good record when it comes to sharing information with citizens. Explain?
Answers
MARK AS BRAINLIEST IF HELPFUL.
Democracy is good for everyone, but there are quite a few countries that have been cobbled together artificially, or are far too big and can only be ruled dictatorially in their present form - Iraq, Congo and Sudan, for example. The only thing to do is to break them up into smaller units that are capable of supporting democratic rule. Yugoslavia was a prime example: out of one dictatorship, lots of smaller democracies. The reasons why democracy is better are legion: democracies don't fight one another; accountability and participation are good in themselves; they're more likely to be humane and, on the whole, they'll take better decisions - Churchill and Roosevelt made far fewer mistakes than Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, and their casualty lists were far shorter. Anyway, since we all think democracy is best for ourselves, on what basis are we going to prefer lesser systems for others?
Democracy also forces both voters and leaders to be more mature, because they have to value the system more than any particular result. There's a story about an upper-class lady exclaiming in 1945, 'Good God, they've elected a Labour government. The country will never stand for it.' She came from a class that was used to having its own way, and just as spoilt children have to learn they can't always have their way, so did she. Nothing is better for people than that.
You can see this more clearly in developing countries (I live in one - South Africa) than in developed ones.
Where democracy is a recent growth you get lots of uncontrollable egos, both at voter and leader level - parties and people that are simply not willing to accept electoral defeat or, often, can't even bear to see their side being criticised by a free press. These are so-called 'illiberal democracies', where majoritarian rule often swamps the normal democratic freedoms. They are inherently unstable since there are no real boundaries as to what the political elite might get up to, and usually the rule of law is the first casualty.
The sad fact is that there's no way for a country to become properly democratic except by living as a democracy over time, with all the ups and downs that means. France got its first democratic regime in 1789, but its first stable democracy was achieved only in 1871, and even that was extremely uncertain for a generation. Even in the West, democracy is quite recent - women only got the vote in 1945 in Italy and France, and in Switzerland not until 1971.