Instructions: Read the following passages carefully and answer the questions that follow.
PASSAGE – 1
An early debate in the empirical study of political democracy concerned the measurement of democracy. Initial work employed dichotomous indicators and incorporated stability into political democracy measures.
Evidence accumulated showing that this approach could adversely affect analyses, particularly in the study of income inequality. At an intuitive level, it is appealing to divide the world into democracies and non democracies. And the idea that the persistence of democratic institutions should be included in any measure appears attractive. But the procedures have shortcomings. Dichotomizing democracy lumps together countries with very different degrees of democracy and blurs distinctions between borderline cases.
For example, are democratic practices entirely absent from Mexican politics? Does the return of elections to Argentina mean that it is a full-fledged democracy? Does the suppression of the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka assign that country to the nondemocratic rank? The difficulty in answering these questions reflects the inherently continuous nature of the concept of political democracy. Further, labeling some countries as democratic invites insensitivity to persisting political inequalities in even these states, because it implies that they are fully democratic, democracy is specified in advance as an all-or-nothing matter.
The other pivotal measurement issue centers on the fusion of stability and democracy. This fusion in empirical measures makes it impossible to interpret observed associations of "democratic stability" with other variables, because it is never clear whether degree of stability or degree of democracy is the operative factor at work. For example, countries that developed earlier are more democratic than late developers, net of their level of industrialization. This hypothesis is supported if one uses stable democracy index as the measure of democracy, but not if one uses a measure that excludes the stability component.
1. According to the passage, why there are certain limitations to dichotomize democracy?
1. Since, political democracy is a dynamic process.
2. Since, political democracy is an insensitive process.
3. Since, notion of political democracy varies from one country to another.
Select the correct option from the codes given below:
(a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only (d) All 1, 2 and 3
2. Which of the following is correct regarding fusion of stability and democracy?
(a) There can be multiple democracy index as the measure of democracy.
(b) Industrialized nations are ought to be more democratic and thus more stable.
(c) Developed countries possess greater stability factors.
(d) Synchronizing democracy and stability is a vague process.
Answers:
1. In second paragraph of the passage it is written that there is a continuous nature of the concept of political democracy and author is also giving the sense that it is difficult to compare political democracy standard of different countries. Thus, 1 and 3 are correct. Passage is showing us that dichotomy of political democracy is a difficult process not an insensitive one. Thus, 2 cannot be correct. Hence, (c) is the correct answer.
2. Although there can be so many stability index of democracy but it will not answer the relation between or process of fusion between stability and democracy. Thus, (a) is incorrect. As in last paragraph it is written that it is impossible to interpret “democratic stability” with other variables. Therefore, there cannot be any co-relation between developed or industrialized country with democratic stability. Hence, (d) is the correct answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment