Democracy as a Hindrance to Development - Literature review Example

DEMOCRACY IS A HINDRANCE TO DEVELOPMENT By of the of the of the School 29 October Introduction Democracy is viewed as one of the ultimate ideals that the modern civilizations strive to achieve. It refers to the situation where the people of a country have a say in the affairs of the particular country and also how it is run. These affairs can be political, social, or even economic related (Grant and Sinclair, 2003). On the other hand, development is the act of improving the quality of all aspects of life that is, socially, politically, and economically (World Bank, 2004). I agree that democracy is a hindrance to development. Democracy and development work hand in hand and ideally, democracy is supposed to be a catalyst to development, but this has come to prove rather difficult. Democracy has resulted to awful consequences that have hindered development in some nations, such as India. In this paper, the ways in which democracy has hindered development are discussed. Democracy as a hindrance to Development Often, democracy has been criticized at the expense of authoritarian regimes, as many have argued that the nations in South Asia have developed especially economically, because of the authoritarian rule. The first modern statements that held that democracy undermines development were those of Walter Galenson and Karl De Schweinitz, who held that democracy releases pressures for immediate consumption (Przeworski and Limongi, 1993). In other words, according to them, democracy did not focus on the future; rather it focused on the immediate consumption. These demands of immediate consumption threaten profit, which in turn reduces investment consequently hindering development (Przeworski and Limongi, 1993). For any country seeking to develop, corruption is usually the first challenge that it tends to handle. Democracy has been accused of not being able to impose the required discipline to sustain ambitious projects that could boost the development of a country. Rather, it has contributed to the emergence of corruption. According to Bhagwati, the “authoritarian rule allowed Singapore to sustain high rates of growth” (2002, p. 151). Due to the fact that every nation comprises of diverse ethnic groups living together, with both superior and minority tribes, the voting process, which is a key aspect in democracy, becomes dominated by corruption as the citizens are given the right to elect who they want, the superior tribes are able to elect more leaders who can favour them (Burimaso, 2013). Those elected tend to satisfy their demands and the demands of those of the majority groups, who elected them. As a result, instead of these leaders helping to grow the economies of their nations, they embezzle funds leading to no or slow development in the countries. Additionally, the opinions of the minority groups in democracy are most of the time overlooked, and thus they are usually victimized in favour of the majority. This ultimately leads to corruption and favouritism towards some of the tribes, and in turn, development is only felt on the side of the majority groups, and this is a challenge to the development of any nation (Bardhan, n.d.). Democracy has intrinsically too many built inefficiencies to be the best way to promote development. Democracy advocates for the separation of power into different branches of the government. These are the judiciary, executive, and legislature. Where power is centralized, it is easy to make decisions that will help in the development of a country, because coming to an agreement will be very easy. When power is separated for example in the case of democracy, it takes too long to build a consensus that will enhance development. For example, for all policies concerning development to be implemented, all powers are supposed to be reading from the same script, which is quite a complex situation that leads to development not taking place. Democracy does hinder development because if democratic processes really worked, majority would not be poor. Most of the countries that exercise democracy are categorized among the poorest or less developed countries in the world. For example, most of the African countries are good examples of failed democracies. The rule that democracy advocates for itself preclude that the laws of democracy themselves may not conducive for development. As democracy advocates for the citizens to have a say in the affairs of a nation, this can have negative impacts to the development of the particular country. The reason why development is hindered is because many democracies unlike authoritarian regimes are susceptible to a lot of pressures from everywhere. For example, from populist pressures for immediate consumption, unproductive subsidies, and other demands that usually hamper long run-investment and growth, and thus ultimately hinder the development of a certain country (Bardhan, n.d.). According to Bardhan, democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for developments (n.d.). His argument is that the industry protection in recent history has taken place under authoritarian regimes and not in democratic regimes, especially in East Asia (Bardhan, n.d.). It is also very evident that with the recent advent of democracy in nations such as Korea and Taiwan, their government’s earlier commitments have become weaker. For example, in South Korea, the government had promised withdrawal of protection of small manufacturing enterprises against competition from chaebols. However, the government has not done much about this. This clearly shows that democracy is not sufficient enough in managing conflicts that arise with market competition (Bardhan, n.d.). Democracy is also seen not to favour economic development, as it not able to force savings and launch economic growth in a particular country. According to Przeworski and Limongi, material and personnel investments are required for economic development; this requires every government to enforce strong measures in order to save surpluses that aid in development (1993). They add that “if such measures were left to democracy, they would surely be defeated and there will no future” (Przeworski and Limongi, 1993, p.54). From this, it is clear that development usually takes place as a result of huge material and personal investments. A lot of sacrifice is usually behind the development. Democracy is said to only generate an explosion of demands for current consumption and not for the future, and these threaten development. This shows that for any investment to be well managed to aid in development, then democracy is not the way to go. In democracy, the state is not autonomous, and if a state is not autonomous, then economic performance is not favoured. The reason behind this is because the state has a role to play in the development function, and if it is autonomous, it is insulated from pressures that will in turn foster development (Przeworski and Limongi, 1993). Democracy is considered a hindrance to development as it is not able to shield itself from external influences, unlike the authotarian regimes which have control over every affair of a particular country. In democracy, the rule is by the wish of the people, who are not able to exert force or even manipulate labour and the market, which are aspects considered essential to development. The money which should be used in facilitating development for a particular country is usually channelled to facilitating campaigns by the leaders who are to be elected, so that they can entice their supporters. Thus, the countries exercising democracy lag behind completely when it comes to development (Burimaso, 2013). Finally, democracy as a rule has been affected by many strikes and demonstrations, as different groups lobby for their views to be heard and their concerns to be felt. This has led to widespread waste and inefficiency of resources, as some resources which could be used for development are channelled to pleasing those groups (Burimaso, 2013). Conclusion Though it is clear that democracy hinders development from the research, the failure of many countries’ development should not be blamed entirely on democracy, because there are many authoritarian nations whose economies are doing quite well and at the same time, there are countries exercising democracy which have really developed. It is important to note that there are other factors that contribute to slow or even no development. There are reports of India as one of the democratic countries that are able to deal with the problems of hunger and famine more easily, compared the authoritarian nations such as China. Democracy is said to help developments through the accountability mechanisms that limit the abuse of power. This enhances development as those who abuse power or the undesirable government intervention in the economy are punished, and reward is given to the desirable government intervention. It is also a fact that democracy has a positive impact, especially to economic growth which is vital for development (Jalles, 2010). In the developing countries, the accountability mechanisms of democracy are particularly important for any kind of development, even at the lowest levels of development. Democracy is not entirely bad because there are countries which are really doing well in terms of development. In this paper, I have tried to analyse and clarify that not all democracy is pretty and positive because it tends to affect the pace and pattern of development. In other words democracy does hinder development. It is my wish that someday, there will be healing powers of democracy. Democracy according to my research is a weaker way of governing a country. I will close my research with the words of Lee Kuan Lee who said that all nations need in order to develop is not democracy, but rather discipline. In other words, Lee wanted to point out that the consequence of democracy is indiscipline and disorderly conduct, which hinder development. Reference List Bardhan, P., n.d. Democracy and Development: A Complex Relationship. [pdf] University of California at Berkeley. Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2013]. Bhagwati, Jagdish N., 2002. Democracy and Development: Cruel Dilemma or Symbiotic Relationship. Review of Development Economics, 6 (2), pp. 151-162. Burimaso, A., 2013. Economic Development, a Prerequisite for Democracy. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2013]. Grant, H. and Sinclair, S., 2003. People in Society: Modern Studies, S1-S2. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd. Jalles, J. T., 2010. Does Democracy Foster or Hinder Growth? Extreme-Type Political Regimes in a Large Panel. Economics Bulletin, 30 (2), pp. 1-13. Przeworski, A. and Limongi, F., 1993. Political Regimes and Economic Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7 (3), pp. 51-69. World Bank, 2004. What is Development? [pdf] Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2013]. Read More