From my point of view, one of the wonderful things about English is its ability to produce, as you call it, "sloppy wording" - it can be beautifully unconcise. I don't want clarity and precision from my language, I want nuance and suggestion - and that's something English is good at. Your example seems to translate back into English as "it's not ruled by its people." No sense of progress, as suggested by "achieve"; no sense of fate or inevitability, as suggested by "yet"; no sense of internal readiness, as suggested by "been able to achieve", rather than just "achieved". "Been able to achieve" also suggests a desire for the achievement, yet also an idea that no overt attempts need have been made, that "achieved" or "managed to achieve" does not quite capture - on the other hand "managed to achieve" has far more effort and struggle implicit in it. And of course, democracy itself is a vague, unconcise, imprecise term, but one laden with conotations. For a country not yet to have acheived democracy is something soaked with implicit ideas about the attitudes of the speaker and listener, and of the country itself, about progress and history and an organic view of nations. Its also very different in tone to "not achieved democracy yet". "It's not ruled by its people" seems to be a plain unvarnished statement of fact. Although, of course, I'm sure that there are many fine nuances of you language that I am unaware of - but the more nuances the less clarity.
My general view is that most things cannot exactly be expressed with words (nor can they be exactly expressed with words, nor by words - but those are very different things); a word is a small thing compared to meaning. In order to express the most possible meaning, words should be spread out, like twisted filaments, or opening nets through clouds of nuance. The smaller, the finer, the more exact, precise and clear the words, the less capable they are of expressing the vast, imprecise inexpressible.