On the other hand, conflict in a society can be represented in the concept of cleavages, issues that polarize society s opinions . There is not a clear defined amount either of how much conflict is necessary for democracy. Conflict is not a condition to have a certain regime, it is a phenomena that takes place in all kinds of political systems. In sum, unity and conflict are not necessary conditions for democracy the core condition is how much conflict and unity are being absorbed by the ones who make decisions in a certain political system. In other words, in all political systems there are issues that polarize or unite society s preferences and beliefs but what characterizes a democratic regime is that the flexibility of change is institutionalized and therefore, conflict and unity can be processed without a breakdown of the current order.
Accountability means that the voters can see the actions of incumbents.
In this way, citizens have the information to evaluate incumbent s performance and either reelect him or her, or give the vote to someone else in the next election. With these two conditions, the political system becomes more interactive, the incumbents are more likely to represent citizens preferences and therefore, the institutions will be more likely to transform cleavages and to absorb unity. A regime is considered democratic if citizens participate through accountability and responsiveness because this mechanism constrains incumbents decisions and therefore, the regime is more likely to absorb conflict and to transform reinforcing cleavages in overlapping ones. The case of the United States demonstrates that, using a selective payment like Affirmative Action, it is institutionally possible to transform reinforcing cleavages to overlapping ones. Canada, the United States and Mexico are three different political systems that have issues that polarize or unite societies preferences and beliefs nonetheless, that is not what makes them more or less democratic.