While Dr�ze and Sen may be correct about democracies having few famines, their argument does not work so well in relation to chronic--or as they call it, "endemic"--malnutrition:

. . . even an active press, as in India, can be less than effective in moving governments to act decisively against endemic undernutrition and deprivation--as opposed to dramatically visible famines. The quiet persistence of 'regular hunger' kills millions in a slow and non-dramatic way, and this phenomenon has not been much affected, it appears, by media critiques. There is need for an analysis here of what explains the difference (Dr�ze and Sen 1995, p. 19).

Many factors account for the tendency of the media to emphasize episodic famines rather than chronic malnutrition, including, for example, their tendency to emphasize sudden-onset events over continuing phenomena. However, the major factor undoubtedly is that democracies are not as democratic as we sometimes assume.

Societies can be democratic but at the same time highly unequal. Democratic governments are responsive to their people, but they are most responsive to the most powerful of them. These are the constituencies that keep their leaders in power. This pattern is clearly visible in major democracies such as the United States and India. Thus, while Sen is correct in observing that acute famines are virtually nonexistent in democracies, he overlooks the fact that they continue to have extensive chronic malnutrition among their poor.

Democratic states may tend to be more equitable in the sense of having less extreme divisions between top and bottom, but all states have substantial inequalities in fact. Dr�ze and Sen speak of "the importance of public accountability in making it hard for a government to allow a famine to develop (p. 29)". The unfortunate fact is that in all societies, including democracies, governments tend to be more "accountable"--more responsive--to those who are more powerful. Those who are politically weak tend to be ignored, except when those who are relatively powerfully speak out in their behalf.

Great democracies such as the United States and India do not have famines, but they do have widespread chronic undernutrition. We can explain this, and still save Sen’s concept, by acknowledging that these democracies-as-lived are imperfect. They are not fully egalitarian, but are more responsive to those of their people who are richer and more powerful. There is government accountability to the people, but not uniformly. Democracies have the same flaw as other political systems: they tend to be more responsive to those who are powerful than to those who are needy. We see this in their economic systems, their social systems, their educational systems—indeed, in every quarter of society. Even programs designed for the poor tend to favor the more capable among the poor. This pattern of democracy-as-lived may be described as elite democracy, to distinguish it from truly egalitarian ideal democracy.

Thus we come, at last, to the explanation for chronic malnutrition that was missing from the early sections of this tutorial. We can understand the persistent and widespread chronic malnutrition in the world, within countries and internationally, as a concrete manifestation of the persistent and widespread disparities in power in the world. Weaker people have weaker entitlements, and thus will always have a disproportionately small share of the earth’s abundant produce. Some individuals will enjoy meals costing hundreds of dollars, and thus command the labor of many others, and at the same time other individuals will squat before nearly empty rice bowls.

As the United Nations Development Program has put it,

. . . the primary purpose of government should be to promote sustainable human development in ways that reduce disparities in income, well-being, education and opportunity among all people without depriving future generations of, at the very least, similar levels of well-being, security and choice (UNDP 1997a, p. iii).

The UNDP also recognizes that human rights work is essential to the pursuit of the integrated complex of goals described in terms of good governance, democracy, and sustainable development (UNDP 1997b; UNDP1998).

National governments are not very responsive the weaker segments of their populations. As we shall see in Subsection IX-c, in much the same way, the international community is skewed against the weaker nations of the world. Explicitly stated human rights, affirmed in the law, accompanied by distinct mechanisms of implementation and of accountability, contribute to counterbalancing this bias in social systems. Thus, a well developed human rights system is not an add-on luxury; it is an integral part of any social system that aspires to be truly egalitarian. It is essential to good governance.