To be sure, we have made much progress –at least in some parts of the world – by installing social guardrails to help protect citizens in time of need. Institutions such as social security, health care and unemployment benefits function better in some countries than others. And one of the best ways to measure the success of a nation on its social front is generally tied to the degree to which that country espouses democratic principles.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding; or as the case may be, in the economic stability of the country concerned. The more democratic a system of politics a government follows the better that country's economy is likely to fare.
A better economy creates more jobs, which ultimately translates into (contented) employed people who are more likely to reinvest their earning back into the economy, thereby feeding the beast.
Jeffersonian democracy, which espouses an open society and a free market economy, will in turn result in a productive society. This theory was put to the test not long ago when the Soviet Union broke apart, the Berlin Wall fell, and the former Soviet socialist republics and the former Eastern European and Baltic satellite states replaced the heavy mantle of communism with democracy and a free market economy.
Just look at countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, or at Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania today. Now compare that with where they were just a few years ago under communism. It's as if they have been magically transported from a cold, gray zone where they had been perpetually parked by the forces of history, to today's fast-paced, fast-moving multi-colored world in which they are participants.
But look at the Middle East today. Although many countries may (falsely) claim to follow a democratic system – and some may even have the word "democracy" chiseled into their country's name – the reality is that words and symbols on their own will not yield the fruits of democracy.
Why, then, do some countries resist change that would introduce greater democracy? This is the case in much of the Middle East and Africa: from Egypt in the north of the continent, where President Hosni Mubarak, in power since 1981, wants to install his son Gamal in his place at the end of his rule; to Zimbabwe, in the south where Robert Mugabe will stop at nothing to remain in power.
Their actions are certainly not for the sake of democracy. More likely for the sake of demagoguery.