Concept:
- The claim is best tested by comparing what a citizen may do under a democracy with what the same person may do under a government that is not accountable.
- The comparison shows freedom is not an accident of democracy but built into it.
Step 1: Compare the right to criticise those in power.
Under a non-democratic government, criticising the ruler invites punishment. Under a democracy citizens may speak, write and protest against the government openly, and expressing dissatisfaction is treated as normal.
The very fact that people complain shows they believe they have the right to judge their rulers.
Step 2: Compare the standing of women.
Where power rests with a few, the position of women depends on custom and on the goodwill of the rulers. In a democracy the principle of equality between men and women is written into law, and discrimination becomes an offence that can be taken to court.
Step 3: Compare the position of disadvantaged groups.
Caste inequalities and untouchability survived for centuries because those who suffered had no way to challenge them. A democracy gives every citizen the vote, the right to organise and the right to approach the courts, so unjust practices can be fought from within the system.
Step 4: Compare what happens when a citizen is wronged.
Without democracy there is no reliable way to seek redress, since the same authority that caused the harm also decides the complaint. A democracy separates these, providing independent courts, elections and a free press through which a wrong can be corrected.
Final Answer: On every comparison, the right to criticise, the standing of women, the position of the disadvantaged and the chance to get a wrong put right, the democratic citizen is freer. That is why democracy is better at promoting the freedom and dignity of the individual.