According to the passage, the consequential analysis of democracy as related to development should take into…

To deal with issues of democracy and authoritarian rule we have to pay particular attention both to the context of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy, in particular to the respective roles of voting and public reasoning. The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in GNP, in personal incomes, or in industrialization, important as these may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend upon what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development. If development is understood in a broader way with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question is often asked whether political freedom is conducive to development, we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the constituent components of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP. However, after acknowledging this central connection, we also have to subject democracy to consequential analysis, since there are other kinds of freedoms as well, other than political liberties and civil rights, to which attention must be paid. We must be concerned, for example, with economic poverty.