Liberal Democracy Fostering Development - Essay Example

Liberal Democracy fostering Development By: Introduction The development of countries relies on the system of governance, and the leadership values adored by the leaders. Such methods come to scrutiny when undertaking Development Studies. There have been long-running debates in Development Studies about which form of political organisation can best lead to wider development progress. Majority of these discussions emphasise on the part of ‘democratisation’ as the best form of governance. Amartya Sen argues that development can be reinforced by liberal democracy. He believes democracy fosters social development, provides a climate in which people can complain and promotes dialogue and discussion. However, he says that liberal democracy can help alleviate poverty and famine. A study by Gabbay (1999), noted how the democratic India failed to tackle the Bihar famine of 1966. This proves that Sen’s argument is wrong. Leftwich (1996), argues that, better governance, not democracy, is the immediate development solution. This paper will not disapprove Sen arguments; the researcher will discuss, in light of experiences in non-democratic countries such as China, and South Korea, that Sen’s ideology of liberal democracy fostering development is misleading. (i) Democracy is intrinsically important to the society Liberal democracy is intrinsically valuable to a society. Sen argues that there is a positive relationship between social development and civil rights, and democracy (Sen, 2001, pp. 8-25). In much of Sen’s writings, he argues that liberal democracy is the best way to foster social development. This is partly because liberal democracy allows the peole to acess health and education at affordable costs, and the Indian experience after independence. Indians voted against Indira Gandhi when she curtailed basic political freedoms/civil rights in the mid-1970’s, citing a national emergency(Sen, 2001, p. 26). Sen’s arguments are that, the political life should be dedicated to the protection of rights common to all human beings. These include the right to life, free speech, property, equal understanding of the law, fair process in criminal proceedings, and right to practice religion of one’s choice. Additionally, he advocated for people to have the right to choose the political leaders, and pursue one’s happiness (Sen, 2001, p. 20). Sen argues that liberal democracy will assist in opening up new prospects for democratic development. For instance, liberal democracy in Africa has led to dictatorial governments legalising opposition parties and competitive elections. Leaders in liberal democracy have power and authority. They are the heads of both the military and the police. The judiciary ensures implementation of the rule of law. That said the citizens enjoy both political and legal equality. The state officers in this type of democracy are expected to subject to the law and respect individual liberties. The citizens have the right to organise, demonstrate, and speak their minds. Liberal democracies allow the minority groups to practice their culture and beliefs without fear of victimisation. The executive arm of the government has powers that are limited by state actors. The courts protect the property rights of citizens and corruption is heavily punished(Sen, 2001, p. 20). The civil societies are useful in fostering development. They are responsible for setting the priorities of the most vulnerable in the society. With liberal democracy, according to Sen, civil societies can play their roles effectively. Democracy will allow civil societies expand their choices in the way they make the needs of the most vulnerable people in the society know. This will enable the vulnerable individuals in the society to promote their freedom from poverty, fear, and violence(Sen, 2001, p. 18). Therefore, Sen’s thoughts are that liberal democracies promote both individual and collective freedoms, promote personal responsibility for one’s choices, and support the way people protect their common interests and goods(Sen, 2001, pp. 8-20). (ii) Sen argues that democracy makes instrumental contributions to society. Sen’s argument is that, with democracy, there would be a climate where people can complain, speak out and argue. There would be promotion of transparency. Things will we be happening in the government and individuals will be aware of. The people have to vote on all laws. This means that it will be harder for leaders to pass legislations that only benefit them. There will be increased public involvement in government projects and plans (Sen, 2001, p. 32). In much of Sen’s writings, he argues that democracy is the best way to avoid famine. Sen bases his argument on the fact that democracy allows freedom of press. He believes that a free press and an active political opposition will constitute the best early warning system that a country threatened by famines can have (Sen, 2001, p. 33). One reasonable interpretation of his arguments is that an endorsement of liberal electoral system plus a free press are both necessary and sufficient for the conquest of poverty (Sen, 2001). Liberal democracy ensures that the people in leadership to uphold human rights and the rule of law. First, the leaders are elected after free, and fair and frequent elections. For this reason, the citizens entrust them to provide good governance. Additionally, democracy ensures the leadership decentralises its authority and resources. This is to give the people a greater role to play in governance. Thus, according to Sen, liberal democracy ensures the leaders provide good governance, transparent and accountable leadership, and citizens playing more significant role in governance(Sen, 2001, pp. 30-43). (iii) Sen argues that democracy plays a constructive role. Sen believes that discussion and dialogue help to formulate what economic need are in a society. Liberal democracy has transformed the concept of governance significantly. According to Sen, democracy plays a constructive role, that is, it allows discussion and dialogue among the leaders. Liberal democracy has enabled governance to be more than just government. Governance is present in day-to-day lives of every citizen. It is manifested in the ways people manage their relationships with other people, just the way big companies use it to manage their activities. Leaders in liberal democracy can allocate resources equitably, and efficiently manage the resources based on the collective problems in the country. Sen argues that liberal democracy ensures equal participation, transparency, and accountability (Sen, 2001, p. 20). States in India with high literacy rates, such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu are characterised by much debate at local and national political levels. This has led to lower fertility rates, as women have been able to articulate the bad effects of high fertility rates. Sen argues that liberal democracy allows social integration that ensures both economic and social development. In the end, there will creation of powerful social protection systems guaranteed by the welfare state (Schumpeter, 1992). Leaders should be provided with a conducive environment to work for the best interests of their subjects, according to Sen. For example, the leaders should formulate strategies aimed at fighting poverty after closer consultations. Liberal democracy provides room for discussions, and the leaders involved at all levels of the decision-making process. In order to alleviate poverty, governments should promote democracy. Despite many non-democratic nations being able to reduce poverty, their strategies were only meant for short-term goals. To ensure long term goals, there is a need for participation by the poor in making decisions that affect them. In this case, participation is only guaranteed in liberal democratic regimes (Sen, 2001, p. 35). Even though Sen’s claims are broadly true, the reality is more complex. Despite lack of enough studies to dispute Sen’s claims, it is not easy to test the ‘liberal democracy fosters development’ hypothesis. There are many countries such as South Korea and China that have placed strong emphasis on improving governance and operational efficiency rather than plunging themselves into the democracy solution. These countries have experienced tremendous growths, politically, socially, and economically (Kalia, 2004, p. 56; Parnwell, 1996, p. 98). Non-democratic nations that are developed address their rising social problems from rural developments to social protests with ease. Many ‘western’ pundits argue that is high time for such countries to step up their political reform process. To Sen Amartya, political reform means ‘democratisation.’ For instance, China has been opening up and improving its political and government systems over the years and even the economy. However, Western scholars, and even Sen does not see eye-to-eye with Chinese leadership. It would not be wrong to say that, most non-democratic nations have the tenet of ‘Economic reform first, political reform later.’ Non-democratic economic success owes great deal to this tenet(Schumpeter, 1992, p. 88). Sen argues that liberal democracy is a pre-requisite to political reform. However, for political reform, the priority lies in improving governance and increasing operational efficiency (McLeod, 2007, p. 63). Additionally, many experts argue that democratisation is a slow and gradual process. That said, improving governance and increasing operational efficiency is considered to be politically, economically, and socially much less disruptive than democratisation (Norris, 2012, p. 33). For many decades, researchers have been trying to create the relation between democracy and economic development, without a common conclusion. History tells us that successful economic development has taken place in all sorts of political regimes (Leftwich(b), 1996, p. 66). The most important thing for economic development is an enlightened leadership that can lead its subjects in a proper way and which can mobilise the resources for pursuit of economic growth. For prosperous growth and development, there is a need for good governance, not democracy. Third world countries, for example, Tanzania, are examples of this phenomenon. These countries have pseudo-democracy but lack economic development because of poor governance. Therefore, Sen is not right to say that liberal democracy fosters development. Sen argues that liberal democracy can prevent famine. However, Sens argument that freedom of press and speech can prevent poverty is misleading. Freedom of press is not sufficient to prevent famine(Bowornwathana, 2008, p. 36). There are scenarios where people starve to death in several electoral democracies. Amartya Sen is confident that the democratic Indian government has the ability to avoid famine and fight poverty. However, the Bihar famine of 1966 demonstrated how India failed in famine prevention. Nevertheless, the Indian press failed to alert the government of the impending famine (Gabbay, 1999, p. 34). Liberal democracy constructs a limited conception of the citizen. The occurrence of the Second World War meant that there is a need for human expansion. This is because there was mass mobilisation of different groups of people during the war effort (Leftwich, 1996). There are new attacks upon liberal democracy. These attacks are associated with capitalism and neoliberalism’s inadequate conception of democracy. Many liberal democracies undermine the consideration of the structural inequalities related to the current Westernised political economy (Adelmen, 2006, pp. 56-60). Sen’s argument IS that Liberal democracy is intrinsically important to the society as it is crucial to both economic and social development. This is false because liberal democracy promotes capitalism developing with limits to growth, feminism, civil rights campaigning, and the anti-globalization movement (Ezenyili, 2012). There is a growing critique of liberal democracy. For example, today’s governments are regressing the rights of groups such as the poor whilst attacking human rights by wanting to replace the Human Rights Act with ‘British’ Bill of Rights (Lawan, 2008, pp 15-40). Leaders who are advocates of liberal democracy are cutting government spending at unprecedented levels even though Sen continues to preach the virtues of liberal economies. The best example of critique of liberal democracy is the Occupy Movement (Schumpeter, 1992, pp. 31-40). There is a need for promotion of participatory democracy, economic redistribution, and equality alongside localised political and economic units. The Occupy Movement is expanding tremendously, and this indicates that many people across the world are against the present economic, social and political relations(Schumpeter, 1992, pp. 31-40). Sen’s argument is that liberal democracy plays a constructive role by allowing discussion and dialogue that helps in formulating what economic need are in a society. This is the reason developing countries are influenced to adopt the Westernised democratic structures. Sen’s argument is wrong because developing countries are often blindfolded by ‘Westernised’ countries(Schumpeter, 1992, pp. 31-40). They are made to adopt certain democratic structures that ‘promote’ democracy. For instance, a Western country such as the US had the president, President Bush, ‘elected’ for both terms. There were evidences of electoral fraud and manipulation by Bush (Schumpeter, 1992, p. 12). Therefore, it would not be wrong to say liberal democracy is inviting more criticism because its flaws often fall short of a substantive democracy. It favours minimalistic practices. That is why there is growing the movement of ordinary people around the world (Schumpeter, 1992, pp. 20-40). Liberal democracy is based on debt. People in such democracies spend a lot of money investing in false needs in order to sustain a government that exploit most over, in favour of a few (Schumpeter, 1992, p. 10). This is the reason capitalistic countries blame those in personal debt during the economic crisis. Experts argue that debts will forever be in capitalistic countries. Sens argument that liberal democracy makes instrumental contribution to development is farcical (Sen, 2001, p. 5). Liberal democracy leaders are ignorant of the capitalist crisis. Adherence to liberal democracy has considerable implications. Government leaders of liberal democracies have established the rights of the individual as the basic unit of society. This tends to shrink the citizens’ interests (Schumpeter, 1992, p. 12). In many cases, countries that support liberal democracy secure the rights of their citizens. Sometimes they obtain these rights at the expense of the rights of non-citizens. Despite few occurrence of racial or religious discrimination in liberal democracies, there is discrimination based on nationality. This is the main reason liberal democratic nations fail to act on atrocities in other parts of the world, for example, Rwanda in 1994 (Salevao, 2005, p. 56). Conclusion From Sens perspective, liberal democracy such as the focus on rights has proven to be important. However, in some cases such as China and South Korea, this is not the case. The most important thing to note is how liberal democracy can foster development. For example, in developing countries that are democratic, how has democracy assisted the people both socially and economically? There is a need for more participation by people in movements that advocate change of political and economic system. This paper partially agrees with Sen’s views that liberal democracy fosters development, economically, either politically or socially. Nonetheless, there is growing attack on liberal democracy because it does not allow participation and co-operation at its centre. References Abrahamsen, R., 2001. Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good Governance in Africa. New York: Zed Books. Adelmen, R., 2006. Democracy and Development’ in Clark D. (ed) The Elgar Companion to Development Studies Cheltenham. New York: Edward Elgar. Adelmen, R., 2006. The Elgar Companion to Development Studies. In: New York: Edward Elgar. Ahrens, J., 2002. Governance and Economic Development: A Comparative Institutional Approach. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing. Berggruen, N., 2013. Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century: A Middle Way between West and East. New York: Wiley.  Bhagwati, J., 2004. Part IV ‘Appropriate Governance: Making Globalization Work Better’. In: Defense of Globalization. New York: OUP. Booth, D., 2013. Governance for Development in Africa: Solving Collective Action Problems. Chicago: Zed Books. Bowornwathana, B., 2008. Comparative Governance Reform in Asia: Democracy, Corruption, and Government Trust. New York: Emerald Group Publishing. Chan, S., 2002. Liberalism, Democracy and Development. Chicago: Cambridge University Press. Cheema, S., 2010. Democracy, Governance and Development: A Conceptual Framework, New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Chen, J., 2013. A Middle Class Without Democracy: Economic Growth and the Prospects for Democratization in China. New York: Oxford University Press. Collier, P., 2007. Bad Governance in a Small Country. In: The Bottom Billion: Why The Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It . oxford: OUP. Diamond, L., 2010. Developing Democracy in Africa:African and International Imperatives, New Orleans: Hoover Institution. Diamond, L. J., 2005. Democracy, development and good governance: the inseparable links. New York: CDD-Ghana. Ernstorfer, A., 2009. Capacity Building for Good Governance. Baden-Baden: GTZ. Ezenyili, O. K., 2012. Democracy and Good Governance in Nigeria: A Survey of Indices of Transparency and Accountability. New York: AuthorHouse. Feng, Y., 2005. Democracy, Governance, and Economic Performance: Theory and Evidence. Chicago: MIT Press. Fonchingong, T. N., 2009. Cameroon: The Stakes and Challenges of Governance and Development. New York: African Books Collective. Frimpong, K., 1991. Corruption, Democracy, and Good Governance in Africa: Essays on Accountability and Ethical Behaviour. New York: Lightbooks. Gabbay, R., 1999. Good Governance Issues and Sustainable Development: The Indian Ocean Region. Chicago: Atlantic Publishers & Dist. Griffin, L., 2014. Good Governance, Scale and Power: A Case Study of North Sea Fisheries. New York: Routledge,. Grindle, M., n.d. Development Policy Review. Good Enough Governance Revisited, 25(5). Halperin, M. H., 2005. The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace. Foreign affairs, pp. 1-5. Hyden, G., 2005. Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from 16 Developing Countries. London: Lynne Rienner. Jorgensen, M., 2007. Rebuilding Native Nations: Strategies for Governance and Development. Arizona: University of Arizona Press. Jreisat, J. E., 2002. Governance and Developing Countries. New York: BRILL. Kalia, S., 2004. Good Governance and Development. New Delhi: New Century. Kotze, D., 2008. African Political Elites: The Search for Democracy and Good Governance. New York: African Books Collective. Kumar, S., 2007. Governance and Development: Lessons and Experience of Kerala. New York: APH Publishing,. Kwon, H. Y., 1997. Contemporary Korea: democracy, economic development, social change, re-unification process. Chicago: Center for Korean Studies, North Park College and Theological Seminary,. Lawan, F., 2008. Democracy & good governance: challenges and prospects. Abuja: University of Nigeria. Leftwich(b), A., 1996. Democracy and Development: theory and practice. Oxford: Polity. Leftwich, A., 1996. Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Wiley. Leftwich, A., 2004. What is Politics? The Activity and Its Study. Oxford: Oxford. MacEwan, A., 1999. Neo-liberalism Or Democracy?: Economic Strategy, Markets, and Alternatives for the 21st Century. New York: Zed Books. Marshall, T., 1949. Citizenship and Social Class. New York: Pluto Press. Matsheza, P., 2005. The role of the media in promoting democracy and good governance. Johanesburg: Human Rights Trust of Southern Africa. McLeod, R. H., 2007. Indonesia: Democracy and the Promise of Good Governance. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Midlarsky, M. I., 1997. Inequality, Democracy, and Economic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore, B., 2003. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. New York: Beacon Press. Norris, P., 2012. Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare, and Peace. s.l.:Cambridge University Press. Norris, P., 2012. Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare, and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parnwell, M., 1996. Uneven Development in Thailand. New York: Avebury. Salevao, I., 2005. Rule of Law, Legitimate Governance and Development in the Pacific. New York: ANU E Press. Schumpeter, J., 1992. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (7th Edition). London: Routledge. Sen, A., 2001. Chapter 6 ‘The Importance of Democracy’ in Development As Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More