.
Lijphart finds that while majoritarian and consensus systems are similar on the effectiveness of governance, consensus systems are far better at representing the will of the people, and can be seen as a "gentler, kinder" (Lijphart, 1999, p.275) form of democracy as they give more consideration to welfare and the environment. Becuase there is no objective way of measuring the quality of a democracy, a variety of different indicators have been suggested, such as by David and Morlino (2005), who argue that both procedural indicators, such as the rule of law, participation, competition and accountability, and substantive dimensions, like freedom and equality, need to be analysed to measure democratic performance. Gwiazda (2016) instead argues that we should give greater importance to the procedural indicators over the substantive ones as democracy is " first and foremost a set of procedures" (Gwiazda, 2016, p.17), so should therefore be evaluated on procedural grounds. She proposes four indicators; representation, participation, competition and accountability and argues that these four indicators "are interlinked and mutually enforcing" (Gwiazda, 2016, p.31) and can be applied to any type of democracy, thereby going beyond the what others in the field have established. It is procedural indicators that will be analysed in this essay as they are most amenable to comparison and quantitative analysis. .
Participation.
Participation is a key aspect of any democratic system as it involves electing representatives into power. Gwiazda (2016, p.22) argues that citizens will have "some control over the decisions to which they are subject" if they participate effectively. Good participation, measured by voter turnout, is the result of a high quality democracy as citizens "make use of their formal rights of participationand influence the decision making process" (Gwiazda, 2016, p.
