Rethinking Democratization in the Philippines 183 Modifying the definition originally drawn from Schmitter and Karl, the working definition of democracy used in this book as articulated by Miranda reads as follows: Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives [original definition by Schmitter and Karl] and their involvement in politically active civil society groups. As a system of governance, it demonstrably promotes--however slowly or gradually, even allowing for occasional, temporary reverses---a progressively human quality of life for its citizens within fifty years of a regime's formal democratic initiation [ Miranda's modification in italicized text]. The working definition of democracy used in this project addresses two important weaknesses that have beset traditional definitions of democracy. First, by providing a criterion for regime performance, our definition departs from a mainly procedural understanding of democracy that privileges the existence of free and competitive elections and related processes as the necessary and sufficient conditions of a democratic system. As Miranda stresses: “If sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority derives from them, it would be absurd to classify a regime as democratic where the material and other conditions of human life do not improve or at least do not markedly worsen over time”. Thus, if certain outcomes and practices such as the rule of law and the quality of human development are intrinsic to the survival and reproduction of the democratic process, it is conceptually and logically necessary to include these factors in a working definition of democracy. There exist strong comparative empirical findings that democratic regimes are best sustained by strong economic conditions. One major study shows that “democracies survive in affluent societies whatever may be happening to them,” that “they are brittle in poor countries,” and that “per capita income is by far the best predictor of the survival of democracies” (Przeworski et al. 2000: 137). Other major studies also support the finding that prospects for sustaining democratization are lower in societies with high levels of inequality (Boix 2003; Acemoglu and Robinson 2006). In particular, Boix's study also shows that presidential systems with low per capita incomes and high levels of income inequality (as measured by the Gini index) face higher rates of observed failures and probability of regime breakdown (2003: 150-155). Thus, it is imperative to include a regime performance dimension in defining democratic systems since a process of democratization can hardly be sustained in the absence of significant improvements in the material welfare and socio-