The Third World: Dependency and Development - Research Paper Example

The Third World: Dependency and Development The subject of dependency and development in Third World countries has been one of some debate in the past years. The question that is being asked is the following: which type of regiment is indeed preferable for the development of these poor, troubled countries. Are democracies better than dictatorships, or are there also arguments in favor of the latter? It is of course quite logical that democracies and other types of regimes that are democratic in nature are the most obvious choice for development for countries and general, and especially Third World countries, which are in even greater need for development and growth. However, several arguments have been raised in favor of dictatorships. Those who favor and support free regimes as most beneficial for these countries list a number of reasons for this. First, free regimes are peaceful by nature, respectful and governed by the citizens themselves (via elections). This allows the people to decide on the course of action for their country, and does not force anything on them. It is especially crucial for this to exist in these countries, which are of desperate need for even the basic rights of human beings, and include proper living conditions, access to clean water and food, etc. Supporters basically say that each country and its people have the right to determine how to operate the state and to which direction it should go, rather than it being dictated and forced onto them by a single ruler and his ferocious soldiers (Snyder, 1992, 390-1). Second, it is said, as it's been seen throughout history, that dictators don't really take care of their people, but have a tendency to look after themselves and their supporters and allies, at the expense of the citizens, who are often subjected to harsh, cruel conditions, as the elite group of the country, affiliated with the regime, enjoys all the benefits and luxuries the dictator has to offer. In other words, the inequality is at its highest when a single, totalitarian leader is on control of a country (Gandhi and Przeworski, 2006, 3-4). Third, dictators are known to be in favor of seclusion and separation from other countries, typically not forming relations with many other countries or involving themselves with international organizations, in fear of being subjected to criticism or interference of others in what goes on in their country. This limits the country's ability to engage in commercial and economic exchanges of resources and goods with other countries, which is crucial in today's global market. Dictators tend to limit their contacts to those countries that align themselves with them, generally ones with similar government systems. Given the nature of these countries, any economic collaboration and exchange can benefit the country, and by severing or not even engaging in such relations with many other countries, dictators curtail the economic progress of their countries, forcing the people to suffer the consequences (Gandhi and Przeworski, 2006, 6-7; Handelmen, 2011). Fourth, countries ruled by dictators tend to be aggressive and hostile by nature. Since they don't cooperate with many other countries economically and otherwise, they are forced to find other financial means for maintaining their ruling, and they typically do so by one or both of these ways: taking the little money the citizens have and leaving them with nothing or starting military campaigns against other nations in order to obtain more resources, territory and finances. These conflicts with other nations not only are expensive but also carry great risks with them- including the devastation and destruction of buildings and infrastructures, a great cost of human lives and the possible occupation of the fought-against nation, in case the latter wins the war or military campaign (Snyder, 1992, 382). These and other arguments have been made in favor of free and enabling regimes. However, some claims have also been made supporting dictators. The first of which is that although their negative and detrimental nature, dictatorships sometimes maintain a certain order, albeit forced and oppressive, in their country of ruling. Nations ruled by dictatorships are more often than not ones with various ethnic groups, religions, factions or political groups that are very hostile toward each other, and if there isn't one ruler in charge of the country, the situation in it may quickly spiral out of control and reach a boiling point from which chaos, anarchy and even civil war may arise. The existence of one dominating person from one of those rival factions creates certain stability, as the ruling faction tends to enjoy the economic and other benefits or be the dominant group in the country, but other groups also enjoy benefits to some extent. This allows the development of the country. It may not be ideal, but it allows a status-quo that if disrupted, may cause even worse afflictions on the country and its citizens. There is no assurance that the next element to rule the country will be any better than the former. It may very well be a dictator as well. However, there are instances where the changing of the ruling benefits the country, as the next to inherit the ruling of the country allows more freedoms to citizens and advances the country. Another pro for the rule of dictators in relation to a country's development is derived of the fact that dictators are sometimes assisted by another country which in all intents and purposes supports it or funds it, either fully or to some extent (Jackman, 1982, 185-187). One may ask why this is important in the bigger scheme of things, or what the big picture is, referring to the potential effects on other countries or the world as a whole. The answer is quite simple: history has shown over and over that dictators or oppressive regimes cripple the population and limit its development, but also affect other nations, mainly the neighboring nations, which may be threatened by war, invasion or aggression by the totalitarian country, but also other countries that may become targeted by the country. In a state of perpetual war or military conflict, there is only so much a country can develop, invest in its population and enhance its abilities, technologies, resources and capabilities. That combined with the damages of war lead to decreased possibilities or opportunities for development for other nations. Dictatorships may even affect the entire world, if they develop technologies which pose a threat to all nations, including the development of weapons of mass destruction which could be used against all countries (Jackman, 1982, 180-2; Handelmen, 2011). Clearly, the existence of dictatorships in Third World countries, as well as in other countries, affects not only the governed country itself but may also have a regional or even global effect. One must keep this in mind when dealing with a dictator and allowing it to continue its reign. On the over hand, one must also be aware of the negative potential consequences for replacing or overthrowing of a dictator on the future of his country and at large. Works Cited Page Jane Gandhi and Adam Przeworski." Cooperation, coaptation and rebellions under dictatorship". ECONOMICS & POLITICS (2006): 2-26. Howard Handelmen." The challenge of third world development". 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. Robert W. Jackman. "Dependence on Foreign Investment and Economic Growth in the Third World". World Politics (1982): 175-196. Snyder, R. "Explaining Transitions from Neopatrimonial Dictatorships". Comparative Politics, (1992): 379-399. Read More