emocracy has long been heralded as the political system best suited to prioritise citizens’ needs, particularly in the realm of social development. This belief is supported by growing evidence that democracies outperform autocracies in critical areas such as healthcare, education, peacebuilding and economic growth. A 2023 report, The Case for Democracy, by the University of Gothenburg’s V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) Institute provides compelling evidence that democratic institutions, through mechanisms of accountability and civic participation, deliver long-term improvements in these domains.

According to the report, countries transitioning to democracy experience an average of 20 percent higher GDP per capita within 25 years compared to those that remain autocratic. Additionally, democracies see significant improvements in public service provision—delivering 23 percent more access to safe water, 35 percent more immunisations for children and 40 percent more access to electricity. These gains stem largely from the accountability pressures inherent in democratic systems, where leaders must respond to the needs of their constituents to remain in power.

In terms of health outcomes, the report argues that democracies show superior performance. Countries that move from autocracy to democracy see a 94 percent reduction in infant mortality and a 3 percent increase in life expectancy within 10 years. Education, another critical area of social development, sees a 70 percent rise in secondary school enrolment following democratisation. Gender equality also benefits, with fully democratic countries demonstrating 60 percent more egalitarian gender attitudes and women holding key government positions in higher numbers. Importantly, democracies tend to experience lower levels of corruption as they mature, which further enhances their ability to deliver public goods and services effectively.

Autocracies pose a significant risk to peace. A large body of evidence shows that human security and peace are strongly related to democracy. For example, the V-Dem report highlights that since India’s shift toward electoral autocracy, the statistical odds of a militarised dispute with Pakistan have improved by 300 percent compared to a decade ago.

However, the link between democracy and social development is not always straightforward. Some autocratic states rank surprisingly high on global indices, like the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index. Hong Kong ranks 4th out of 193 countries, the UAE stands at 17th, Qatar and Saudi Arabia at 40th, Kuwait 49th and Russia 56th—outperforming many democracies, including India (ranked 134th), which claims to be the world’s largest democracy. These examples challenge the assumption that democracy is inherently superior at delivering social development outcomes.

Advocates of autocracy argue that centralised decision-making allows for the rapid implementation of policies and large-scale infrastructure projects. The absence of democratic checks and balances can enable leaders to bypass bureaucratic inefficiencies and opposition, directing resources toward healthcare, education and welfare programmes swiftly.

China’s rise as an economic power offers a counter-argument to the democratic model. Over the past few decades, China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty; created a vast middle class; and achieved significant advancements in healthcare and education, all without a democratic political system. The ability of autocratic states to focus on long-term planning, free from the pressures of electoral cycles, gives them certain advantages when it comes to executing large-scale development initiatives. For example, both China and the Gulf states have used their centralised power structures to push through infrastructure development at a pace that democracies would find difficult to match.

Despite these examples, there is a growing consensus that while autocracies may achieve rapid gains, democratic governance is essential for sustainable social development in the long run. A functioning democracy ensures accountability, civic engagement and inclusivity in policymaking. One of democracy’s key strengths is its ability to empower marginalised groups and provide them with a platform to influence policy decisions. Civic participation helps ensure that social development initiatives reflect the actual needs of the population and not just the priorities of a ruling elite. Moreover, democratic systems tend to promote transparency and anti-corruption measures, which are critical for ensuring that public funds are allocated effectively. In contrast, the gains made by autocratic regimes can be unevenly distributed, often leaving out significant portions of the population.

In countries such as Pakistan, where social indicators remain low (HDI ranking 164), the need for a robust democratic system becomes even more critical. Pakistan’s history of oscillating between military and civilian rule has impeded its ability to make consistent progress on social development. Despite manifold improvement, women, ethnic minorities and rural populations in Pakistan often struggle to have their voices heard. A well-functioning democracy could lead to more inclusive social development policies.

Pakistan’s struggle with corruption has historically diverted resources away from critical sectors like healthcare and education, and undermined trust in the government’s ability to deliver on its promises. A strong democratic system, with institutional checks and balances, can address this issue by fostering transparency and holding public officials accountable. In this context, democracy is not just a matter of political preference; it is a tool for ensuring that development resources reach the people who need them the most.

Another critical aspect of democracy is its resilience to shocks. In the face of crises, such as the devastating floods that hit Pakistan in 2022, democratic institutions are better equipped to coordinate relief efforts and ensure that aid is distributed transparently and fairly. Autocracies, while capable of mobilising resources quickly, often lack the accountability mechanisms necessary to ensure that such efforts are sustained and benefit the entire population.

While democracies offer a strong foundation for social development, not all democracies perform equally well. Moderate democracies, characterised by weak institutions, flawed electoral processes and high levels of corruption, often struggle to deliver the promised social development outcomes. This is particularly relevant for transitional democracies like Pakistan, where democratic institutions are still maturing. The mere presence of elections is not enough. To realise the full potential of democracy, Pakistan must focus on strengthening its institutions; promoting democracy within political parties; empowering local governments; securing access to information; and encouraging inclusive civic engagement. As Pakistan’s democratic institutions mature, it will be better positioned to address its deep-rooted socio-economic challenges and ensure that social development is a priority for its leaders. By investing in its democratic institutions, Pakistan can create a more stable and prosperous future for its people.

The writer heads the Sustainable Development Policy Institute. His X handle: @abidsuleri