All democracies (and every other structure of government) are bound to have few structural flaws, which

are associated to the character of democracy. Diverse populaces have diverse views about the different
political procedures. The advantages and disadvantages of any political structure have to be measured
vigilantly in order to reach at any finale.

"For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they
will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." - Aristotle

Democracy originated from the Greek word demos (people) and kratia (power); Democracy is
the thought that leads a country to give an atmosphere that unites equivalent gains and prospects
(in the political, social, and economic spheres) for the common man. There are many advantages
to this political scheme; the masses are given rights and liberty. An additional advantage of
democracy is that it permits common man to play a dynamic part in the political actions of the
nation. Nonetheless, there are disadvantages also. One of the prime disadvantages of democracy
is the power of the masses which can also be distorted and become the autocracy of the masses.
Therefore this can become a treacherous matter in democracy. An added downside of the ruling
of majority in democracy is that it lifts barriers in the liberty of idea or the freedom of outlook.

Advantages of Democracy
Peaceful Modifications in the Government: Democracy can offer modifications in
government without hostility. In a democracy, authority can be reassigned from one party to
another by the mode of elections. The power of the general public of a country decides its ruling
power.

Averting Monopoly: Furthermore, any government is confined to an election tenure after

which it has to contend against other parties to recover power. This method averts monopoly of
the reigning party. The reigning authorities have to ensure it functions effectively for its people
as cannot continue being the authority subsequent to carrying out its term unless re-elected by
the people.

Feeling of Gratitude: This inculcates a feeling of responsibility towards the citizens. The
reigning party owes their accomplishment in the elections to the people of the country. This leads
to a feeling of thankfulness towards the citizens. It can act as their inspiration to function for the
people for it is the general masses that have absolute authority over selecting their government.

Social Responsibility of the Citizens: An additional vital advantage of democracy is that

the citizens achieve a sense of contribution in the procedure of selecting their government. They
get the chance to speak out their views by method of electoral voting. This gives ascend to a
feeling of belongingness in the brains of the masses towards their society and its well being.

Disadvantages of Democracy:
Making the wrong choice: In a democratic country, it is the common man who has the
supreme right to choose their legislature and their prevailing authorities. As per a general study,
not all the people are completely conscious of the political circumstances in their nation. The
common masses may not be acquainted of the political matters in their society. This may lead to
common man taking an erroneous selection during election.

Authorities May Lose focus: As the government is bound to changes and modification after
each election tenure, the authorities may function with a interim objective. Since they have to go
through an election procedure after the conclusion of each tenure, they may lose focus on
functioning effectively for the citizens and instead might concentrate on winning elections.

Hordes Have Influence: A further disadvantage of democracy is that hordes can manipulate
citizens. People may vote in support of a party under the pressure of the bulk. Constrained or
influenced by the ideas of those around, an individual may not put across his/her accurate
judgment. Democracy averts radicalism and encourages teamwork and synchronization. It also
slows things down, stops those in authority doing what they wish regardless of the majority's
desires.

Definition of Democracy:

Democracy, by definition, is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
citizens who can elect people to represent them. It can also be defined as the political orientation
of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of democracy? Let us find out.

Advantages of Democracy:

Democracy can provide for changes in government without violence. In a democracy, power can
be transferred from one party to another by means of elections. The jurisdiction of the citizens of
a nation determines its ruling authority. Moreover, any government is bound by an election term
after which it has to compete against other parties to regain authority. This system prevents
monopoly of the ruling authority. The ruling party has to make sure it works for its people for it
cannot remain being the authority after completing its term unless re-elected by the people. This
brings in a feeling of obligation towards the citizens. The ruling authorities owe their success in
the elections to the citizens of the nation. This results in a feeling of gratefulness towards the
people. It can serve as their motivation to work for the people for it is the common masses that
have complete power over choosing their government. Another important advantage of
democracy is that the people gain a sense of participation in the process of choosing their
government. They get the opportunity to voice their opinions by means of electoral votes. This
gives rise to a feeling of belongingness in the minds of the people towards their society.

Disadvantages of Democracy:

In a democratic nation, it is the citizens who hold the right to elect their representatives and their
governing authorities. According to a common observation, not all the citizens are fully aware of
the political scenario in their country. The common masses may not be aware of the political
issues in society. This may result in people making the wrong choices during election. As the
government is subject to change after every election term, the authorities may work with a short-
term focus. As they have to face an election after the completion of each term, they may lose
focus on working for the people and rather focus on winning elections. Another disadvantage of
democracy is that mobs can influence people. Citizens may vote in favor of a party under the
influence of the majority. Compelled or influenced by the philosophies of those around, a person
may not voice his/her true opinion. Every form of government is bound to have some shortfalls.
Different people have different views about the various political systems. The advantages and
disadvantages of any political system have to be weighed carefully in order to arrive at any
conclusion.

Advantages of a parliamentary system

One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it’s faster and easier
to pass legislation. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect
support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would
amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature)
possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. In a presidential system, the executive is
often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a
system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate
can occur. Accordingly, the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly
implement his or her platform/manifesto. Evidently, an executive in any system (be it
parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or
her party’s platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily
instituted within a parliamentary system. In addition to quicken legislative action,
Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or
ideologically divided. In a uni-personal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated
in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided.
It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of
parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling
president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than
voting for an actual person. Parliamentarianism has been praised for producing serious debates,
for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time The
four-year election rule of the United States to be by some to be unnatural. There is also a body of
scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that
claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point
out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary
governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World
presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups
and other constitutional breakdowns.

 Criticisms of parliamentarianism
One main criticism and benefits of many parliamentary systems is that the head of
government is in almost all cases not directly elected. In a presidential system, the president is
usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people,
separate from the legislature. However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected
by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party’s
candidate for the head of government is usually known before the election, possibly making the
election as much about the person as the party behind him or her. Another major criticism of the
parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly
independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no
substantial check on legislative power (see tyranny of the majority). Conversely, because of the
lack of inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too
much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have
little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. However, parliamentary systems
may be bicameral, with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which
the executive comes). Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has,
or even a dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes
unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, Canada, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany
as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties,
votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance
impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of
proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarized electorates. Although
parliamentarianism has been praised for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack
of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party
can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of
unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend
its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. This problem can be
alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the case in several
of Australia’s state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling
party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. Conversely, flexibility in
the timing of parliamentary elections avoids having periods of legislative gridlock that can
occur in a fixed period presidential system. It has been argued that elections at set intervals are a
means of insulating the government from the transient passions of the people, and thereby
giving reason the advantage over passion in the accountability of the government to the people.
Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the
community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to
parliament since there is no option to “run for prime minister” like one can run for president
under a presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely
because they lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally.
Supporters of parliamentarianism can respond by saying that as members of parliament,
prime ministers are elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their
support then consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. In parliamentary
systems, the role of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the separate
position of head of state, which is generally non-executive and non-partisan. Promising
politicians in parliamentary systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats – ones that
are unlikely to be lost at the next election – which allows them to focus instead on their political
career.