Democracy and Economic Development - Essay Example

Whether liberal democracy, illiberal democracy or itarian rule is the best route to economic development for low income countries Tutor Introduction Democracy and economic development are two concepts that were not related initially, however, with the rise of democracies and the subsequent economic development there is an established correlation between the two concepts. The question that this paper will seek to address is “which is the best regime for economic development”. In responding tothis question it is significant to first distinguish between the different regimes that are available; liberal democracy, illiberal democracy and authoritarianism. Additionally, is prudent to define development before arriving at a consensus on the best regime for development. Liberal democracy is a form of government that allows the society to participate in policy making. This participation should be at every level of the decision making process as well as keeping control of the process. Democracy is seen as the absolute enjoyment of human rights. The elements of a democratic society include freedom of speech, an independent judiciary and the power to legislate which must be exercised by representatives of the people who are elected in free and fair elections. Laws, in a democratic society, are implemented by responsible individuals and all administrative organs are accountable to the people’s representatives (Hadenius 1992). A liberal democracy, therefore, is a society where collective decisions, including policies, laws and procedures are the direct or indirect choice and preference of equal citizens in the society. The opposite of a democratic democracy is an authoritarian rule. Authoritarianism is a form of government where obedience to authority is absolute or blind. There are four essential qualities of an authoritarian regime and these include a limited political diversity, which is characterized by constraints in political groups and institutions. An authoritarian rule has a basis of legitimacy, often the identification of the rule as necessary to combat societal problems. Additionally, an authoritarian rule does have neither an extensive nor an intensive process of political mobilization and has an executive power that is vague. An authoritarian rule, therefore, favors the concentration of power on one individual who is not constitutionally accountable to the citizens and individual freedom is secondary to the state authority (Oforiwaa 2014). An illiberal democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government, which is characterized by partial democracy. Partial democracy in this sense denotes that although elections are conducted to elect representatives, citizens are disconnected from knowledge of the activities of the people who exercise power due to the lack of civil liberties. An illiberal democracy, therefore, is an intermediate between a democratic and a non-democratic society. An illiberal democracy can arise in a situation where there is a constitution that limits the powers of the government, but ignores civil liberties or where a sufficient legal framework of liberties is not available (Makdisi & Elbadawi 2011). Development In analyzing economic development it is imperative to look beyond the restrictive and narrow approach that focuses on economic and financial factors. Economic development should, however, be viewed from a multidimensional approach that includes a whole range of social, economic and cultural factors. Economic development should be focused on sustainable human development and takes into account all factors that support individual fulfillment. The broader concepts of economic development involve a number of dimensions which are reflected by a growth in the societys productive capacity, improved quality of life, distribution of wealth, improved access to basic facilities, sustainable use of the environment and improved gender equity. Among factors that affect economic development are the environment, social justice, education and democracy (Shihata 1997). Economic development and democracy The connection between democracy and developments has been manifested in many economies since the end of the Second World War. The idea is that there is a centrality between the mode of government and the economy. The economy is a sub structure of society and this substructure determines the overall structure of the society, including politics. Democracy is primary in economic development as it is a facilitator of economic development. Democracy provides the basic foundation for economic development and values such as the, freedom of speech, rule of law, freedom of association, separation of powers and protection of human rights provide an institutional setting and process for economic development. Democracy facilitates economic liberation, provides mobilization of resources and provides a better environment for economic development (Gerring, Thacker & Alfaro 2012). Democracy and development are complimentary and they reinforce each other and aids development through the mechanism of accountability. Accountability acts to limit the abuse of power by the executive and provides checks for undesired interventions in the economy. Transparency is also another factor that is important in economic development and institutions that operate with a greater degree of openness are more likely to develop. Political transparency is also essential in liberal democracies as well as essential information dispensing institutions and press that is free from political control. Such transparency is necessary to check the misuse of power and resources from those in power and, therefore, liberal democracies tend to gain economic development as a result. The presence of checks and balances in the allocation of resources helps in the distribution of wealth, which is necessary for economic development. In developing countries the concept of accountability is particularly vital, especially for the informal sector (Makdisi & Elbadawi 2011). Disconnect between democracy and development Although there is an apparent connection between democracy and development, there is a school of thought that perceives the link between democracy and economic development is rather weak. Though there is the consensus that democratic governments post a higher per capita income and stability, there are an increasing number of authoritarian regimes that can achieve economic development while maintaining political autonomy. Authoritarian regimes achieve economic development through strategic coordination of economic activities. Strategic coordination in this regard refers to a set of undertakings that are aimed at winning political power. Strategic coordination limits coordination of opponents and, therefore, reduces the prospects of strong oppositions (Leftwich 2002). Authoritarian rulers suppress coordination goods, which are vital for the opposition, but does not greatly affect economic development. The suppression of coordination goods while maintaining all other public goods ensures that the economy is developing, but limiting the organization of the opposition. It is thus possible for authoritarian regimes to attain economic development while maintaining authoritarianism if the suppress only coordination goods. Development in an authoritarian state increases the prospects of authoritarianism as it expands the government’s resources and its ability to deal with problems. In the short run the economic development increases the citizen’s satisfaction with the regime ad thus reduces the need to change the regime. In the long run economic development can pose a challenge to autocrats as effective political leaders will emerge to challenge incumbent autocrats. Economic development results to this increase in competitors as the political stakes are raised with an improvement in the economy. Additionally, economic development increases the number of individuals with sufficient time, resources and education to enter politics. Eventually, these individuals will upset the autocratic regime and replace it with democratic rule (Persson & Tabellini 2006). Discussion With the increasing disengagement between democracy and development it is imperative to note that development does not necessarily require democracy. Promoting economic development in developing countries does not result in democracy because it is possible to lessen the effect of economic development on authoritarian regimes by limiting coordination goods. In regard to illiberal governments, grants and loans are likely to increase the regimes prominence due to citizen’s satisfaction with the economic progress made by the regime. From the analysis of democracy and development it is imperative that both democracies and autocracies can have positive and negative impacts of economic development. The first element is ownership stability, which implies the system of property rights in a society. The productivity of property rights is dependent on the manner the rights are assigned as well as the form of government in place. The protection of property rights are not entirely dependent on the type of government since pressure from the loss of in a democratic society will force for income redistribution, but in non-democratic regimes those in power can quell those who advocate for redistribution (Przeworski 2000). This however does not imply that autocracies manage property rights well as those in power can misuse such power to steal the countries property and engage in productive undertakings. Another factor is legal stability that is necessary to attract investors. Although a stable legal system is associated with democracies, it is possible for non-democracies to have a stable legal system and, therefore, attract investors. Social stability is also another factor that is necessary for economic development. Social stability implies the lack of strikes, unrests, crime and riots which affect economic development. A country with increased social instability is not likely to develop economically and political stability can either occur in both democratic and non-democratic environments (Przeworski 2000). Conclusion From this analysis, it is noteworthy that the difference between democracy and authoritarianism in regard to economic development is not great. However the relationship between democracy and economic development is complex with multiple contradictions and tensions. Despite this complexity, it is apparent that when economic development is well instituted it can act as a base for democracy. Factors that may affect the correlation between democracy and economic development include the character of the policies adopted by the state and external pressure on the economy. Ultimately a democratic form of government will result in a higher economic growth rate as it is likely to nurture transparency, accountability, equality, consensus and learning which are vital in economic development. Reference list Gerring, J., Thacker, S. C., & Alfaro, R. 2012, Democracy and human development. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 74 no. 1, pp. 1-17. Hadenius, A 1992, Democracy and development, Cambridge University Press. Leftwich, A 2002, Democracy and development, New Political Economy, Vol. 7 no. 2, pp. 269-281. Makdisi, S. A., & Elbadawi, I. 2011, Democracy in the Arab world: explaining the deficit IDRC. Oforiwaa Gyamera, G. 2014, Education, democracy and development: does education contribute to democratization in developing countries?. Journal of Education Policy, pp. 1-2. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. 2006, Democracy and development: The devil in the details. National Bureau of Economic Research. Przeworski, A. 2000, Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge University Press. Shihata, I. F. 1997, Democracy and Development, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 46 no.3, pp. 635-643. Read More