In the modern and globalized world, it is common to find democratic institutions in the most economically developed countries. Democratic regimes look different all across the world, and the term itself is multi-faceted. For the sake of discussion, in its simplest terms, I will refer to democracy as a system of governance where the population that is governed elects their leaders. A substantive democracy would include more such the promotion of human rights and rule of law.
As substantive democracies are so common in the developed world, it has led many scholars to ask whether democracy is a prerequisite for development. There are many examples we can look to that provide us with the easy answer of “no” such as Singapore or China. However, I would argue that democracy and development are not mutually exclusive. The sustainability of equitable development is linked to the type of governance structure. A true democracy cannot be enjoyed without a minimum standard of living, which therefore requires a certain level of development.I argue that democracy is not a necessary condition for development, however democracy and stable institutions are needed as a country’s economy matures into modernization/development.
Before we can talk about the relationship between democracy and development, it is important to define the concepts and refer to them consistently as we describe the complex and elusive relationship between them. In political science, democracy is described as a type of governmental system, where by the whole of society can participate in the state’s decision-making process and keep control.Others go further, for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights looks at promotions of rights and freedom of speech as indispensable preconditions of democracy. Democracy however is not just an institutional system.
It is also a part of culture and an embedded idea in society[i]. For example, a tolerance and respect for other people, pluralism and open dialogue allows a truly democratic system. The manifestation of democratic values will be different depending on the specific historical, religious and cultural characteristics that make up that society and nation.General principles of democracy and the methods by which it is exercised will look different. However, the key premise to democracy is that it must be conceived with a value of freedom and rule of law, which is created by those who have chosen and defined it. Democratic systems can trace its roots in Western culture, particularly Greek city-states in fourth and fifth century BC.
Athens had one of the first experiments in direct democracy where a small elite voted on bills and legislation.Though they excluded women, slaves and other communities within their voter base, it is important to bring up ancient Greek democracy as an example of some of the critical components of democracy[ii]. My favorite and perhaps most useful definition of democracy is Robert Dahl’s defnition, which breaks the concept down by its procedural minimums:1. Control over govt decision about policy is constitutionally elected officials 2. Elected officials are chosen frequently and in fair elections; coercion comparatively uncommon.
3. All adults have right to vote 4. Practically all adults can run for office 5. Citizens have right to express themselves without fear of severe punishment on political matters broadly defined. 6. Citizens have right to seek alternative sources of information (and are allowed) 7.
Citizens have right to form relatively independent associations including political parties and interest groups. [iii] Based on this definition democracy, democratic regimes are most closely connected to spheres of governance, which is one of many components of development.From various academic disciplines, we have been able to ascertain several working and useful definitions of democracy. The trouble we have in answering whether democracy is a precondition for development rests in the issue of our elusive understanding of development. For a long period, development was only understood in economic terms. [iv] It was assumed that free and open markets were the key conduit for progress.
Recent years have proved that economic growth alone has not been sufficient in delivering development.The study of development is only a few decades old and it should be understood to mean a whole range of economic, social and cultural progress to which people aim. There are various ways of looking at the relationship between democracy and development. Some authors argue that economic development and democracy have reciprocal effects on one another.
For example, Milton Friedman believes that if people have ensured political rights, it will reinforce economic rights and therefore beneficial to development.Economic freedom however is predicated on a free, fair and regulated economy. v] Friedman does argue that sometimes, when governments are too involved, for example in income redistribution projects, this is not conducive to development, however this is not an issue of democracy itself. Prezeworksi argued that there are two key ways in which democracy is related to economic development; “democracies may be more likely to emerge as countries develop economically, or having been established for whatever reasons, democracy may be more likely to survive in developed countries”[vi] and others argue that the relationship between development leads to democracy in a linear fashion.Barsh also refers to Lipset who argues “democracy is a result of development, rather than a prerequisite…democracy can arise only after certain minimum economic conditions are met, in particular the wide distribution of wealth.
”[vii] Democracy could potentially retard development, particularly economic development in countries that have little or no experience with either. In this case, democracy would be directly related to economic standing, but inversely related with growth. The logic behind this argument is that democracy may be demanded as development grows, however it can in turn also slow development down.Poor country’s economic development may not be the most conducive to democracy, so they could enjoy progress without the weight and pressure of democracy. Countries with a lower degree of economic development would have difficulty managing or keeping democracy, while countries with a greater level of economic development would do a better job with democracy, and therefore encourage development.
In many of today’s advanced economies such as the United States, United Kingdom, Japan and others, all had tremendous economic growth under non-democratic or developing democratic regimes.Modern-day examples include China, Singapore, and the UAE. Based on both historical and contemporary examples, it may not be a far stretch to say “development-oriented dictatorships” and authoritarian governments are needed to jump-start development. [viii] Democracy and non-democratic institutions can have beneficial and harmful effects on development. Studies in economics and political science give us several examples and case studies of countries that provide empirical evidence for what can help and hinder development.I believe that while democracy is a conducive political system that supports individual’s rights, stability of institutions is key and even more important for sustainable development.
In Dr. Fennell’s course, we have discussed how institutions play a key role in the market by creating sets of rules and expectations. When you can count on an institution to be stable and deliver the same results (whether it’s the justice system, the market, education etc. ) there is an increased incentive for individuals to participate and therefore expanding civil society as a whole[ix].
I think that legal and social stability are perhaps the most important and necessary conditions for long term development and modernization. A stable legal system that ensures ability to invest, property rights, and other basic human rights are incredibly important for development, however they are only productive to the degree to which rights are enforced. [x] Legal systems ensure security for all who participate in within in, and security helps breed further development because people can expect certain returns.In theory, both a democratic and a non-democratic regime could protect rights. However, there are many scenarios we could assume that would prove that democracy is not a prerequisite for legal sustainable development. For example, dictator and authoritarian governments may be far-sighted, but can easily have a stable rule of law.
In many developing countries, such as India, the state is often weak in certain pockets of the country, and particularly weak in the areas of corruption control and enforcement of the law.Though we cannot guarantee either regime having legal stability (as a necessary component of development) I would argue that overall democracy is better because it can guarantee legal stability via a constitution, court system, and several other systems that are socially and culturally appropriate. Another form of stability that is a necessary for the maintenance of a democratic institution is social stability – with regards to lack of endemic civil wars, riots, revolts and crime[xi]. This could be a slippery slope, but of course social stability comes in varying degrees.Depending on the degree, social unrest could damage the ability of a democratic regime to maintain legitimacy in society as well as control and productivity of that government.
A non-democratic government may have more social unrest either because there is widespread discontent against the government or because the power of the state is so great that they use force against its people. The irony of democracy and democratic systems is that they are meant to provide free and fair spaces for the expression of ideas and majority rule.By putting key issues to a vote, it is meant to be representative and all-inclusive of society, thereby producing socially-stable policies. However, in developing countries, all necessary conditions for healthy participation in democracy may not be present, for example access to information, education, polls and or media. Democracy might achieve more social stability, as both the discontent of the masses and the ambition of political elites would be worked through the peaceful channel of competitive elections.
Democracy alone does not guarantee social stability, but is a necessary condition for long-term development. Sustainable development is key for our understanding of the role that democracy plays in a nation’s growth. It should not be viewed restrictively in the context of economic or financial growth. In order to have a sustained society, it must also be cultural and social, and take into account all the factors that help individuals fulfill his/her potential and desires.
This is where democracy does begin to play a stronger role. Democracy may not be a precondition for development, however, in order for financial growth to sustain itself, beneficiaries of that growth will need other outlets to express themselves. Social justice, education, expressing views, and democracy therefore all have a place in development as well. This broadening idea of development, while important, severely complicates the views of neoclassicalists who argue the economic dimension of development is still preponderant.
Pierson argues that, “for many liberal theorists of democracy, there has been an aspiration to hold the economic and the political apart, or to insulate the economic sphere from immediate control by the demos or the constitutional limits within which a democratic majority may impose its will upon a resistant minority. ”[xii] However, this view should not be completely done away with. As described earlier, the state of economic affairs can impact how effective a democratic institution will work. Economic hardships in particular can severely hurt or delegitimate both democratic and non-democratic regimes.Depending on how long the tradition of democracy has been in existence in any given nation, or how entrenched and powerful the authoritarian government is, the economy could have more or less of an impact. At the end of the day, helping countries escape endemic poverty and creating development means that both direct needs for survival as well ability to act in the political space and influence decisions will be just as important.
Both democratic and non-democratic regimes benefit from economic development, but economic development alone is not predicated on democracy.Both are bolstered by favorable economic conditions. Therefore, depending on how we define “development” our answer to the original question could vary. If we stay on the track of defining development in economic terms, it is important that the international community and NGO community do not act as if economic development cannot or shouldn’t justify democracy, nor can it legitimize non-democracy.
Our modern-day examples of quick developers such as China show us that democracy is not a precondition for growth.However, the growing civil unrest, political and human rights activism in China suggests that for the long term sustainability of the country will rest on whether the government can create freer and fair spaces for collective action, media, speech and other associated democratic freedoms. On this note, Prezeworksi reminds us that, “democracies are much more likely to survive in affluent societies” and this trend is better predictable[xiii]. China’s growing affluent population may see a more politically active future at this rate.Political scientist, Francis Fukuyama argues that in countries where there is a high degree of corruption or an incompetent government, it is likely to increasingly see democratic movements on a grassroots level.
Therefore democracy is “not just about development producing development, but democracy can be used as a tool for improving government and brining democracy. ”[xiv] This view is supported by Huber’s thesis that democracy is important to society because it “shifts the balance of class power…gain an unprecedented capacity for self-organization. [xv] Economic development can happen anywhere, with any type of government with a good knowledge and expertise of the global market.However, democracy and the act of is an incredibly social process and it is needed eventually by more developing and developed countries to achieve stability (both economic and political). The more developed a nation is, the more imperative a need for means of social and political participation will occur. This maturation process helps utilize the best and brightest minds of any community by giving access to information, opportunities, and expression, thereby perpetuating development in a peaceful manner.
