Access Investments-European Union- ROMANIA

Even the ECB's support is not obvious. Monetary hawks – the Bundesbank and several other core central banks – who were worried about a new open-ended ECB mandate pushed successfully for strict and effective conditionality for countries benefiting from the bond purchases. As a result, they can pull the plug on the programme if its stringent criteria are not met.  Moreover, Greece could exit the eurozone in 2013, before Spain and Italy are successfully ringfenced; Spain – like Greece – is spiralling into depression, and may need a full-scale bailout by the "troika" (the ECB, the European commission, and the International Monetary Fund). Meanwhile, austerity fatigue in the eurozone periphery is increasingly clashing with bailout fatigue in the core.  Small wonder, then, that Germany, politically unable to vote on more bailout resources, has outsourced that job to the ECB, the only institution that can bypass democratically elected parliaments. But, again, liquidity provision alone – without policies to restore growth soon – would merely delay, not prevent, the breakup of the monetary union, ultimately taking down the economic/trade union and leading to the destruction of the single market.  In the United States, the latest economic data – including a weak labour market – confirm that growth is anaemic, with output in the second half of 2012 unlikely to be significantly stronger than the 1.6% annual gain recorded in January-June. And, given America's political polarisation and policy gridlock, we can expect more fights on the budget and the debt ceiling, another rating downgrade, and no agreement on a path toward medium-term fiscal consolidation and sustainability – regardless of whether Barack Obama is re-elected as president in November. On the contrary, we should expect agreement only on the path of least political resistance: avoidance of tough fiscal choices until the bond vigilantes eventually wake up, spike long rates, and force fiscal adjustment on the political system.....

"Ineffective governments with weak leadership are at the root of the problem. In democracies, repeated elections lead to short-term policy choices. In autocracies like China and Russia, leaders resist the radical reforms that would reduce the power of entrenched lobbies and interests, thereby fuelling social unrest as resentment against corruption and rent-seeking boils over into protest."

There are indeed two problems which could be called "ineffective governments" and "power of entrenched lobbies and interests" but I disagree with the implication that the former belongs only to "democracies" and the latter only to "autocracies".
Britain's "democratic" government is ineffective, but it's ineffective because its leaders resist radical reforms that would reduce the power of entrenched interests -- there is zero attempt to seriously address the overweening power of corporate wealth and its corruption of the political balance, and far from attempting to rectify Britain's diseased inequalty, the government seeks to demonise the most vulnerable people.
Judging by actions and policies, Britain's government is every bit as craven before wealth, and subjugated to corporate corruption, as China's. The millionaires around the Cabinet table regard the poorest and weakest in their society with just as much contempt as those in the Politburo.