Which of the following is an incorrect demerit of democracy?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 4:

The question asks for the statement that is **an incorrect demerit** of democracy. This means we are looking for the option that is *not* a valid criticism of democracy, and is, in fact, often cited as a strength or merit of the system. Option 4 states: "Democracy fails to develop political intelligence of the people." This is incorrect because, fundamentally, a core tenet and strong argument in favor of democracy is precisely that it *does* develop the political intelligence and consciousness of its citizens. Democratic institutions—such as regular elections, freedom of speech, public debates, and the requirement for political parties to mobilize and educate voters—actively encourage people to participate, understand public issues, and form rational opinions. By giving citizens a stake in the outcome of governance and requiring them to make choices, democracy functions as a "school of political education." In contrast to autocratic systems where the masses are simply expected to obey, democracy relies on the informed choice of the electorate, making the development of political intelligence a long-term benefit, not a failure or demerit. Therefore, citing its failure to develop political intelligence is an **incorrect demerit**.

The incorrect option is 1:

Option 1 states: "Democracy is a very expensive form of government." This is a generally accepted criticism or demerit of democracy, making this statement *correct* as a demerit, and thus the *wrong* answer to the MCQ. Running a democratic system involves massive recurring costs associated with regular, free, and fair elections, which require vast logistical efforts, security arrangements, and electoral bodies. Furthermore, the democratic process involves maintaining numerous political parties, a full-fledged legislature, a separation of powers with independent institutions (like the judiciary), and a robust media, all of which require significant public expenditure. Critics often argue that money spent on frequent elections and bureaucratic checks and balances could otherwise be invested directly into developmental projects, reinforcing the view that democracy is financially demanding compared to simpler, authoritarian structures.

The incorrect option is 2:

Option 2 states: "Democracy is slow and sluggish in its movement." This is another major and commonly cited demerit of democracy. The democratic process is deliberately designed to be slow, as it requires extensive deliberation, consultation, negotiation, and consensus-building among various stakeholders, parties, and institutions (e.g., passing a bill through two houses of parliament, committee scrutiny, and judicial review). This procedural requirement, while ensuring legitimacy and preventing arbitrary decisions, often leads to delays in policymaking and implementation, especially during crises or when urgent economic reforms are needed. This slowness is frequently contrasted with authoritarian regimes, which can execute decisions swiftly. Therefore, calling democracy slow and sluggish is a **correct demerit**.

The incorrect option is 3:

Option 3 states: "Democracy puts emphasis on quantity and not quality." This is a criticism often leveled against the principle of "one person, one vote," where votes of the politically educated and the uneducated hold equal weight. Critics suggest that because democratic survival depends on winning the majority (quantity), leaders often resort to populism, emotional appeals, and catering to the lowest common denominator to secure votes, rather than focusing on complex, long-term, high-quality policy solutions. This emphasis can lead to a governance system focused more on short-term political gains than on meritocratic expertise or thoughtful, nuanced governance, confirming that this is a **correct demerit** of the system.