This is mainly because of the fact that because it has the mandate of the majority of its people, the elected government can do anything that it wishes not only to ensure that it is able to retain its power, but also to influence the policy decisions according to the way it wants it. In this way, even though some of the decisions that it makes will be wrong and at times not in line with good governance, the government, because of the mandate handed to it by a majority of the population, might end up implementing them anyway. Thus, while democracy can be considered to be a good thing, it does not necessarily mean that it will determine good governance and that it might instead create a situation where popular policies which are detrimental to the society as a whole are put in place.
According to Rothstein, one of the factors, which undermine the quality of government, is corruption and this is an aspect which not only thrives in autocracies, but in democracies as well (Rothstein & Teorell, 2008, p.167). It is a common feature in poor countries where individuals tend to be highly demoralised due to low wages which make it difficult for them to make ends meet. The result is that despite some countries being democracies, the fact that they are poor and that most of their people live in poverty creates fertile ground for the development of corruption. Indeed, there are many opportunities in these countries which can enable individuals to lift themselves out of poverty but while this may be the case, the fact remains that most of these opportunities tend to be too expensive and therefore beyond the reach of those who would benefit from them. In such situations, the quality of good governance tends to be affected by the lack of an impartial legal system which can ensure that poor people are able to secure property rights over places of business