the rule of law and dispensing with elections. it is not sufficient that the trains run on time, they have to go in the right direction at the desired time. the physical rail network guiding the trains could be thought of as analogous to rule of law, while the process by which consensus is built around the train schedule could be thought of as democratic accountability. but why do we need both rule of law and democratic accountability to keep strong government on the right path? would democratic accountability not be enough to constrain a dictatorial government? perhaps not! hitler was elected to power, and until germany started suffering shortages and reversals in world war ii, enjoyed the support of the majority of the people. the rule of law is needed to prevent the tyranny of the majority that can arise in a democracy, as well as to ensure that basic “ rules of the game ” are preserved over time so that the environment is predictable, no matter which government comes to power. by ensuring that all citizens have inalienable rights and protections, the rule of law constrains the majority ’ s behaviour towards the minorities. and by maintaining a predictable economic environment against populist democratic instincts, the rule of law ensures that businesses can invest securely today for the future. what about asking the question the other way? would rule of law not be enough? probably not, especially in a vibrant developing society! rule of law provides a basic slow - changing code of conduct that cannot be violated by either government or the citizenry. but that, by itself, may not be sufficient to accommodate the aspirations of new emerging groups or the consequences of new technologies or ideas. democratic accountability ensures the government responds to the wishes of the mass of the citizenry, allowing emerging groups to gain influence through political negotiation and competition with others. even if groups cannot see their programs translated into policy, democracy allows them to blow off steam non - violently. so both rule of law and democratic accountability check and balance strong government in complementary ways. where do these three pillars come from? much of fukuyama ’ s work is focused on tracing the development of each pillar in different societies. he suggests that what the nature of states we see today is largely explained by history. for instance, china had long periods of chaos, most recently before the communists came to power ; groups engaged in total war against one another. such unbridled military competition meant groups had to organize themselves as hierarchical military units, with rulers having unlimited powers.

. strong government does not mean one that is only militarily powerful or uses its intelligence apparatus to sniff out enemies of the state. instead, a strong government is also one that provides an effective and fair administration through clean, motivated, and competent administrators who can deliver good governance. rule of law means that government ’ s actions are constrained by what we indians would term dharma – by a historical and widely understood code of moral and righteous behaviour, enforced by religious, cultural, or judicial authority. and democratic accountability means that government has to be popularly accepted, with the people having the right to throw unpopular, corrupt, or incompetent rulers out. the origins of political order : from pre - human times to the french revolution by francis fukuyama, 2011, farrar straus and giroux, new york, political order and political decay : from the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy by francis fukuyama, 2014, farrar straus and giroux, and political order in changing societies by samuel huntington, 1968, yale university press, new haven. bis central bankers ’ speeches fukuyama makes a more insightful point than simply that all three traditional aspects of the state – executive, judiciary, and legislature – are needed to balance one another. in sharp contrast to the radical libertarian view that the best government is the minimal “ night watchman ”, which primarily protects life and property rights while enforcing contracts, or the radical marxist view that the need for the government disappears as class conflict ends, fukuyama, as did huntington, emphasizes the importance of a strong government in even a developed country. no matter how thuggish or arbitrary the government in a tin - pot dictatorship, these are weak governments, not strong ones. their military or police can terrorize the unarmed citizenry but cannot provide decent law and order or stand up to a determined armed opposition. their administration cannot provide sensible economic policy, good schools or clean drinking water. strong governments need to be peopled by those who can provide needed public goods – it requires expertise, motivation, and integrity. realizing the importance of strong government, developing countries constantly request multilateral institutions for help in enhancing their governance capacity. strong governments may not, however, move in the right direction. hitler provided germany with extremely effective administration – the trains ran on time, as did the trains during our own emergency in 1975 – 77. his was a strong government, but hitler took germany efficiently and determinedly on a path to ruin, overriding