Reply

I shall be addressing Suphasak's point about the economic successes of democracy as opposed to other political systems. While I agree that not all democracies have perfect, or even stable economies, there is certainly a greater likelihood for a nation to have economic success if it is democratic. As I have stated in my essay, this would be due to several virtues of democracy, such as the greater amount of support it gets from world superpowers. If you would compare a different political system, such as communism, you would find a distinct gap in the per capita incomes of citizens. For example, in the old USSR, often considered to be the most "perfect" epitome of Communism, citizens earned far less than other democracies of the day, such as the United States.

Also, Suphasak comments on the rich-poor divide. Yes, although it is possible that democracies may suffer from this problem, but if you consider the alternative you would find other political systems suffer from this to an even greater degree! In an country ruled by aristocrats or a tyrant, it is obvious that the oligarchy would inherently fare much better than the plebians, and compared to this, democracy is clearly not so blatant. Additionally, as stated before, most democracies have constitutions which clearly aim to prevent abuse of any one group of people- including the poor. It is likely that a democratic country would have checks and balances to protect the economically disadvantaged, because clearly, it depends on the power of the people.