 |
| Alfred Burimaso |
By Alfred Burimaso
Introduction
“The unfree nations [authoritarian regimes] will grow
so quickly that they will overwhelm free nations [democratic regimes] with
their economic might. The unfree will see no reason to transit to democracy”[1],
Hassett Kelvin, Director of Economic Policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute warned. These remarks leave no ambiguity. They clearly indicate that
economic development is achievable prior to the establishment of democratic
governance. Furthermore, many scholars, notably Lipset Seymour Martin (1959),
Sirowy Larry & Inkeles Alex (1990) have maintained that economic
development is one of the social prerequisites for democracy. This means that
economic development (high level of income per capita, industrialization,
urbanization, high levels of literacy, long and healthy lives of the people)
must be achieved to support a successful establishment of democracy.
In addition, from the research on the antecedent of
democracy, many have drawn the conclusion that the relationship between
economic development and political democracy properly conceived is sequential:
first growth, then democracy. This is because “regimes more democratic in
character that emerge before the appropriate thresholds of resource
availability, consonant class structure, psychological and institutional
modernity are crossed will tend to generate dysfunctional consequences that do
not only threaten further economic progress, but endanger the democratic
character of the political institutions as well”.[2]
The literature around what is known as the “Lee
hypothesis” supports the view that for economic development to be achieved
prior to democratization, an authoritarian regime must lead the process. It is
argued that only authoritarian regimes can successfully establish and maintain
discipline and order required to develop, thus prevent the slowing down of the
economy which result from a dysfunctional premature democracy.
Fundamental to the conflict perspective is the claim
that economic growth is hindered by democratic organization of the polity. In
other word, democracy and economic growth are seen as competing concerns; hence
tradeoffs in the political realm are considered necessary. Moreover, in this
view successful and rapid economic growth requires an authoritarian regime that
suppresses or delays the extension of democratic procedures and institutions,
because the latter would otherwise subvert the national development project.[3]
Fully aware of democratic benefits namely promoting
fundamental freedoms, transparency, openness and accountability, this article
seeks to highlight arguments that present democracy as a hindrance to economic
development (this is the Lee hypothesis) and demonstrate that economic
development is a prerequisite for democracy, that is, economic development must
be achieved to support the establishment of democratic governance. The article
ultimately maintains that, although democracy is a desirable system of
governance, the timing of its establishment matters.
To achieve this objective, the article is divided in
three sections. Section one explores the meaning of economic development and
democratic governance. Section two highlights arguments that present democracy
as a hindrance to development and why development is considered a prerequisite
for democracy. The third section present conclusions.
1. The
meaning of economic development and democratic governance
1.1.What
is economic development?
“Development in human society is many sided process”[4],
Walter Rodney argues in his book How
Europe underdeveloped Africa (1974). He explains that “at the level of the
individual it implies increased skill and capacity, greater freedom,
creativity, self-discipline, responsibility and material well-being”.[5]
He however warns that, some of these are virtually moral categories and are
difficult to evaluate-depending as they do on the age in which one lives, one’s
class origin, and one’s code of what is wrong.[6]
It could also be argued that personal development depends largely on the state
of the society in which the individual lives as a whole. This is because, as
evidence show, man has always flourished in groups, and relied on the group as
well for survival purposes. The relations that human being establish among
themselves within any given social group constitute a very important way of
understanding development of the society as a whole. The concept of freedom,
responsibility, skill, derive their meaning in social interactions between
human beings.
Others have defined development as “the improvement of
human well- being and quality of life.
This involves the eradication of poverty, the fulfillment of basic needs
of the people, and the protection of human right and fundamental freedoms.”[7]
This understanding of development moves away from the previous definition of
development as the “ mere sustained increase in a country’s per capita income,
a sustained increase in a country’s total production, a long term evolution of
a country’s economic structure and institutions, and a country’s movement
towards becoming a more industrialized economy of greater self reliance”.[8]
1.2.
What is democratic governance?
Democratic governance is defined in this article as an
institutional arrangement that ‘ fosters transparency, accountability, the rule
of law, respect for human right, civic participation all of which are necessary
for expanding economic productivity, equitable distribution and state
legitimacy’[9]
2. A. Democracy as
a hindrance to economic development
Authoritarianism is often praised by proponents of the
‘Lee Hypothesis’ as a necessary condition for economic development. To support
this view, they argue that the economic success observed in south East Asian
countries in the last two decades is due to the fact that the south Asian
nation-states had authoritarian regimes that took necessary measures to
initiate and direct activities that ultimately culminated in their economic
success.
The most frequently noted mechanism by which
authoritarianism is thought to directly facilitate economic development is
through its effects on consumption and savings. Underlying this idea is
the notion that development is primarily the result of huge material and
personal investments. In a poor economy, total production cannot be increased
rapidly without building new factories, improving education, developing
infrastructure services such as communication and transportation, and
introducing new productive technologies. But these goals cannot be achieved
without the accumulation of capital, which in turn depends on savings.
The accumulation of surplus for investment requires
enormous sacrifices. Current
consumption must be cut at the same time that savings increases. But who is to
bear the burden of the sacrifices? In the authoritarian model, since the rich
have higher margin propensity to save, the larger share of national income and
increments due to growth should be directed towards those already well off in
order to maximize the rate of savings.[10]
In addition, authoritarian regimes are seen to be
superior in facilitating economic development because they foster stability,
protect themselves against external influences and allow for a more focused
attention. The instruments through which they exert firm control include the
manipulation of labor and the labor markets, their allocation of resources and
their ability to use cohesion to change traditions and their ability to
collectively direct and organize polices. Furthermore, the most noted way
through which they affect economic development is through control of
consumption and savings. In order for rapid industrialization, capital
accumulation is necessary in order to finance necessary factories,
infrastructural improvements such as transport and communication, as well as
education. This accumulation can only be provided if citizens make sacrifices.
This level of savings is more easily enforced by authoritarian governments who
do not have the greater extraction of resources to distribute the wealth to the
poor to buy votes but can aim instead to use it for long-term development
agendas. The reason the wealth is not redistributed to the poor is because they
have a tendency to consume rather than save which is inimical to development.
The above point brings to light the reason why
democracy is more efficient for economic growth only at the higher levels of
income. To quote Rao, “economic development is a process for which huge
investment in personal and material are required. Such investment programs imply
cut in current consumption that would be painful at low levels of living that
exist in almost all developing countries. Governments must resort to strong
measures and they enforce them with an iron hand in order to marshal the
surplus needed for investment. If such measures were put to popular vote, they
would surely be defeated. No political party can hope to win elections on a
platform of current sacrifices for a bright future”.[11]
From the above, the message is clear that the argument
made against democracy is that it is responsive to the immediate consumption
advocated by the poor. Additional factors that are unhelpful to economic
development include the fact that when workers organize, they push up wages
reduce profit and therefore reduce reinvestment by lowering the volume of
profit and/or rate return. This worsening of investment thus decreases growth.
Since authoritarian political arrangement give political elite autonomy form
distributionist pressures, they increase the government’s ability to extract resources,
provide public goods, and impose short-term costs associated with economic
adjustment.[12]
Some even stronger arguments to charge democratic
governance as hindrance to economic development are yet to be put forward. The
next argument brings to light the issue of interest groups that
disproportionately sway state policy, gaining popular advantages that damage
the economy overall. Democracies give
interest groups a larger scope where they can lobby and organize.[13]
The other argument comes from Przeworski and Limongi
who argued that democracy weakens property rights by giving the disposed a
powerful political tool with which to confiscate the wealth of properly
holders, a route that might lead to economic uncertainty and therefore less
economic development.[14]
This point is highlighted by the following quote, “the idea that democracy
protects property rights is a recent invention, and we think a far-fetched one”[15]
Democracy is also accused of not imposing required
discipline to sustain ambitious developmental project. Lee Kuan Lee affirms
that authoritarian rule was responsible for the Singapore’s high growth rates.
He was quoted as saying, “I believe that what a country needs to develop is
discipline more than democracy. The exuberance of democracy leads to
indiscipline and disorderly conduct which are inimical to development”[16].
To support the antidemocratic point Kholi argued that
“due to the fact that political parties are weak in developing countries, they
are often forced to make promises they cannot keep in order to shore up
political support. This prevents long-term coherent policies and thus avoids
opportunities to have rate-busting performances of South Korea under Park Chung
Hee or the Brazilian ‘miracle’ under military rule”.[17]
The structure of democratic participation relies on
the creation and proliferation of interest groups that lobby for their views to
be heard and their concern to prevail. But a lobbying-infested democracy can
lead to widespread waste and inefficiency through the effect of rent-seeking
and activities. There is also a danger of what
Jonathan Rauch has called demosclerosis: the paralysis of gridlock
afflicting a lobbying-infested democracy[18].
Moreover, the benefits that democracy produces in
allowing citizen participation in governance and in fostering balanced
policymaking can be outweighed by their costs from gridlock and unproductive
profit-seeking.[19]
It is an undisputable fact that democracies are face constantly face with such
a reality of trade-offs.
After exploring the numerous arguments made to prove
the point that democracy hinders economic development, the article now turns to
the arguments that present economic development as a prerequisite for
democracy.
2.
B. Economic
development as a prerequisite for democracy
Proponents of this view hold that unless, significant
levels of economic development have been achieved, democratic institutions and
governance cannot be established or be sustained. This view was highlighted by
the writing of Lipset Samour Martin (1959). He argued that the more well to do
a nation, the most likely it is to be democratic. This is because a developed
nation with high levels of industrialization, high income, very urbanized, with
healthy and educated individuals can afford to engage in democratic processes.
Poor and uneducated people cannot engage I democratic processes because they
more preoccupied with satisfying basic necessities such as food and shelter. In
addition, people need to be educated, be equipped with knowledge and expertise
to be able to participate to be able to participate in policy formulation and
other deliberations. When people lack proper understanding of issues, they are
likely to be manipulated by demagogue politicians. Therefore it is very
critical that the nation be developed first to be in a position to establish a
properly functioning democracy.
When states try to become democratic prematurely, that
is, before they achieve economic development, they become dysfunctional. As
Huntington argues, political institutions of developing countries are fragile
and weak to begin with. Once the huge pressure of democratic participatory
institution is added, the sources of instabilities are greatly increased. The
democratic regimes are quickly overburdened and become busy with maintaining
internal order due to increased channels through which the poor and impatient workers
can articulate their demands to the political elites who must cater to some
groups in order to win elections. The political elite then formulate and
implement policies based on short term political alliances that prevent the
government from focusing on long-term developmental goals. In short, develop
first, and then democratize.
3. Conclusion
The article presented arguments to support the idea
that democratic governance does not help poor countries to overcome their
developmental challenges. Those arguments are:
1.
Authoritarianism is thought to directly
facilitate economic development through its effects on consumption and
savings. They resort to strong
measures and they enforce them with an iron hand in order to marshal the
surplus needed for investment. If such measures were put to popular vote, they
would surely be defeated;
2.
authoritarian
regimes are seen to be superior in facilitating economic development because
they foster stability, protect themselves against external influences and allow
for a more focused attention;
3.
Democracies
give interest groups a larger scope where they can lobby and organize. It takes
a lot of time to make a decision. This leads to the paralysis institutions and gridlock
afflicting a lobbying-infested democracy;
4.
Democracy
is also accused of not imposing required discipline to sustain ambitious
developmental project;
5.
Political
parties in a democracy are often forced to make promises they cannot keep in
order to shore up political support. This prevents long-term coherent policies
and thus avoids opportunities to have rate-busting performances;
6.
Democracy
must also be preceded by economic development, to enable its establishment.
Without economic development, democracy is simply not possible. Thus, develop
first and then democratize; not the other around.
[1] The
American, http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-june-magazine-contents/does-economic-success-require-democracy
[2] Sirowy,
Larry & Inkeles, Alex(1990), The effects of Democratic Growth and
Inequality: A Review, in Studies in
Comparative International Development, 25(1),pp126-157
[7] Jolly R,
Emmerij L, Ghai D., And Lapeyre F, UN Contribution to development thinking and
practice, Indian University Press, Bloomington, 2004,p13
[9] The Ghana
Center for Democratic Development(CDD-Ghana), Governance, Democracy and
Development in Africa: A Cultural Approach, 2001
[11] Rao,Vaman(1984),
Democracy and Economic development, in Studies in Comparatives International
Development, 19(4), pp 67-81
[12] Haggard,
Stephan(1990), Pathways from Periphery, The Politics of Growth in the Newly
Industrialized Countries, Ithaca,
Cornel University Press
[13] Olson
Mancur(1982),The rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and
social Rigidities, New Haven, Yale University Press
[14] Przeworski,
A, & Limongi, F.(1993), Political Regimes and Economic Growth, in Journal
of Economic Perspectives, (7), p51
[15] Ibid, p52
[16] Bagwati,
Jagdish, Democracy and Development, Cruel Dilemma, or Symbiotic relationship?
In Review of Development,6(2), p151
[17] Kholi,
Atul(2004), State-directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization
in the Global Periphery, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, P374
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire