
In analysis of the quality of democracy, that is, an empirical check on how
‘good’ a democracy is, requires not only that we assume some definition
of democracy, but also that we establish a clear notion of its quality. The
minimal definition of democracy suggests that such a regime has, at least,
the following: universal, adult suffrage; recurring, free, competitive and
fair elections; more than one political party; and more than one source of
information. Among those that meet these minimum criteria, further empirical
analysis is still necessary to detect the degree to which they have achieved the
two main objectives of an ideal democracy: freedom and political equality.
Thus, the analysis of a good democracy cannot include merely electoral
democracies, that is, hybrid regimes whose failure to ensure a minimum
level o f civil rights keeps them below the minimum threshold requirements
for classification as strictly democratic.
Starting from both the definition mentioned above and from the prevailing
notions of quality, a good democracy can be said to be one that presents
a stable institutional structure that realises the liberty and equality of
citizens through the legitimate and correct functioning of its institutions and
mechanism.
A good democracy is thus first and foremost a broadly legitimated regime that completely satisfies its citizens (quality in terms of
result).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263345253_What_is_a_'good'_democracy