Conceptualizing and Measuring Modern Democracy 17 The addition of a time frame within which a regime must show not only a formal commitment to a human quality of life but an operational capability to increasingly meet that objective is also a vital element in this modied denition of a modern political democracy. 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 with time. In this modern age of expanded conceptions of human freedoms and their attending rights, participatory governance and the rule of law, it would be strange indeed if the necessary conditions of democratic governance did not reect the temper of the times. (A 'democratic' society where citizens are willing to live brutally or miserably and to do so continuously for at least half a century – two generations – is one where most of them are either systematically disempowered by their ruling authorities and consequently are unable to demand and secure better conditions or they are incorrigible masochists. Such a society cannot possibly be a credible instance of democratic governance.) Some students of democracy are careful to warn against a "fallacy of anachronism" (Schmitter, 2004:51) where a concept gets to be loaded with meanings that given the historical times then obtaining, could not be expected to reect. It is not appropriate, for instance, to demand of democracy during the Greek classical period that it also should manifest universal suffrage. However, it is equally a fallacy of anachronism to exclude from a concept the very properties that have become so vital and compelling in our own modern times. Governance nowadays and particularly democratic governance cannot be meaningfully explored without considerable attention being given to quality of life and basic human needs consideration. Incidentally, a fty-year time period to clearly demonstrate this democratic commitment to a progressively human quality of life is not really a severe requirement given contemporary times. Much of the current confusion in classifying a regime as democratic stems from an overly liberal analytical bias that permits non-democratic and even anti-democratic regimes to indenitely pass themselves off as some species of democracy albeit clearly saddled with critical deciencies in terms of popular sovereignty, rule of law, free and competitive elections, public accountability and other bona des of a democracy. Historically, this bias has beneted corrupt, anti-democratic, oligarchic ruling elites that lean on paper constitutions even as they violate its democratic provisions with much impunity. The emphasis on a human quality of life is dictated by the consideration that democracy in current times cannot be divorced from considerations of improvements in the material, political and civil dimensions of human existence. It would be strange indeed if a sovereign people in a democratic setting – with rule of law, free elections, political participation and political accountability were to settle in the long run – the 50-year test -- for a brutal and often even worsening quality of life.