Arguments for and against democracy

Question 1ExpertLevel 21

Why can the arguments of rights and accountability in democracy not be measured only by economic growth?

ABecause democracy is also linked with citizen dignity and political freedomBBecause economic growth is always unnecessaryCBecause rights have no relation with democracyDBecause accountability comes only from money

Question 2ExpertLevel 21

If democracy has many parties but all depend on money power which critical question arises?

AWhether real choice and equal competition existBWhether polling date is correctCWhether citizens should remain silentDWhether elections have ended

Question 3ExpertLevel 21

The argument of public criticism in democracy improves which quality of governance?

ASecrecyBScrutiny accountability and correctionCHereditary rightDSuperiority of one person

Question 4ExpertLevel 21

If decisions are taken by majority in democracy but opposing voices are suppressed before discussion what is lacking?

ALack of real deliberation and inclusive consentBLack of election expenseCLack of voting speedDLack of ruler stability

Question 5ExpertLevel 21

When does the argument of delay against democracy become less strong?

AWhen delay is only due to disorderBWhen discussion prevents a serious mistakeCWhen people are excludedDWhen decision is secret

Question 6ExpertLevel 21

If a system gives citizens quick results but does not treat them as decision makers which moral argument for democracy applies?

AArgument of citizen dignity and participationBArgument of election expenseCArgument of policy instabilityDArgument of money power

Question 7ExpertLevel 21

What is the best balance between public participation and expert knowledge in democracy?

AKeep people completely outBRemove experts completelyCUse expert advice with participationDDecide only by slogans

Question 8ExpertLevel 21

If elections give people voice in democracy but campaigns spread confusion what is the balanced analysis?

AElections are only harmfulBElections always give perfectly correct informationCPeople's voice is important but quality of information is also necessaryDCampaign has no relation with democracy

Question 9ExpertLevel 21

The criticism of corruption in democracy can be balanced by which positive institutional possibility?

APeople media and opposition can question corruptionBQuestioning corruption is impossibleCElections exist to hide corruptionDAccountability does not exist in democracy

Question 10ExpertLevel 21

Why can acceptance of a decision increase in democracy even if not everyone agrees with it?

ABecause the process gave chance of hearing and participationBBecause the decision was secretCBecause opposing voices were suppressedDBecause public opinion was removed

Question 11ExpertLevel 21

If citizens only vote but do not discuss policies in democracy which advantage weakens?

ACriticism of election expenseBBenefit of thoughtful participation and better decisionsCCriticism of policy instabilityDCriticism of leadership change

Question 12ExpertLevel 21

If someone says democracy is only majority numbers what is the expert correction?

ADemocracy is majority along with a framework of rights accountability and dignityBRights have no place in democracyCMajority always has unlimited powerDPeople's participation is unnecessary

Question 13ExpertLevel 21

The ability to change power places people in which deeper political position in democracy?

AThey are participants and controllers of governanceBThey are only spectatorsCThey are only order followersDThey are outside governance

Question 14ExpertLevel 21

If all sides were heard in a democratic decision but the decision remains controversial what becomes important?

AProcedural legitimacy and peaceful dissentBSecret ruleCPublic silenceDOne person's order

Question 15ExpertLevel 21

What is the main difference between policy instability as criticism and correction ability as support for democracy?

ABoth relate to government change but one worries about continuity and the other gives chance to correct mistakesBBoth are only advantages of democracyCBoth are unrelated to democracyDBoth end elections

Question 16ExpertLevel 21

Which democratic method can reduce the criticism of lack of expertise in democracy?

AExpert advice with public discussion and transparent policy makingBSilencing citizensCRemoving electionsDKeeping policy secret

Question 17ExpertLevel 21

Why can democracy be considered better governance while accepting its weaknesses?

ABecause it provides voice accountability dignity correction and peaceful changeBBecause it has no weaknessesCBecause it only increases expenseDBecause it gives no importance to people

Question 18ExpertLevel 21

Why would writing only for or only against democracy be wrong in an expert level answer?

ABecause democracy has both advantages and weaknessesBBecause democracy has no argumentsCBecause only opposing arguments are trueDBecause only favourable arguments are true

Question 19ExpertLevel 21

What is the deepest importance of debate in democracy?

AIt links decisions with public reasoning and citizen participationBIt always stops decisionsCIt excludes citizens from governanceDIt ends elections

Question 20ExpertLevel 21

What is the most mature expert conclusion about democracy?

ADemocracy is not perfect yet gives citizens voice rights accountability and institutional possibility of correctionBDemocracy is perfect and criticism is impossibleCDemocracy is only slow and costlyDPeople have no role in democracy

Arguments for and against democracy

Quiz this set

Why can the arguments of rights and accountability in democracy not be measured only by economic growth?

If democracy has many parties but all depend on money power which critical question arises?

The argument of public criticism in democracy improves which quality of governance?

If decisions are taken by majority in democracy but opposing voices are suppressed before discussion what is lacking?

When does the argument of delay against democracy become less strong?

If a system gives citizens quick results but does not treat them as decision makers which moral argument for democracy applies?

What is the best balance between public participation and expert knowledge in democracy?

If elections give people voice in democracy but campaigns spread confusion what is the balanced analysis?

The criticism of corruption in democracy can be balanced by which positive institutional possibility?

Why can acceptance of a decision increase in democracy even if not everyone agrees with it?

If citizens only vote but do not discuss policies in democracy which advantage weakens?

If someone says democracy is only majority numbers what is the expert correction?

The ability to change power places people in which deeper political position in democracy?

If all sides were heard in a democratic decision but the decision remains controversial what becomes important?

What is the main difference between policy instability as criticism and correction ability as support for democracy?

Which democratic method can reduce the criticism of lack of expertise in democracy?

Why can democracy be considered better governance while accepting its weaknesses?

Why would writing only for or only against democracy be wrong in an expert level answer?

What is the deepest importance of debate in democracy?

What is the most mature expert conclusion about democracy?

Quiz result

Arguments for and against democracy

Quiz this set

Why can the arguments of rights and accountability in democracy not be measured only by economic growth?

If democracy has many parties but all depend on money power which critical question arises?

The argument of public criticism in democracy improves which quality of governance?

If decisions are taken by majority in democracy but opposing voices are suppressed before discussion what is lacking?

When does the argument of delay against democracy become less strong?

If a system gives citizens quick results but does not treat them as decision makers which moral argument for democracy applies?

What is the best balance between public participation and expert knowledge in democracy?

If elections give people voice in democracy but campaigns spread confusion what is the balanced analysis?

The criticism of corruption in democracy can be balanced by which positive institutional possibility?

Why can acceptance of a decision increase in democracy even if not everyone agrees with it?

If citizens only vote but do not discuss policies in democracy which advantage weakens?

If someone says democracy is only majority numbers what is the expert correction?

The ability to change power places people in which deeper political position in democracy?

If all sides were heard in a democratic decision but the decision remains controversial what becomes important?

What is the main difference between policy instability as criticism and correction ability as support for democracy?

Which democratic method can reduce the criticism of lack of expertise in democracy?

Why can democracy be considered better governance while accepting its weaknesses?

Why would writing only for or only against democracy be wrong in an expert level answer?

What is the deepest importance of debate in democracy?

What is the most mature expert conclusion about democracy?

Quiz result

Analytics choices