DEMOCRACY vs. DEVELOPMENT ?

During the period of the cold war there was a sordid consensus that the development needs of newly independent colonies were best met by strong leaders, it’s called the “authoritarian advantage”. However a squalid but elegant economic theory emerged to justify this proposition. These strong men could be trusted to oppose communism and if they crushed legitimate democratic opposition, that was the cost of the cold war. Fair enough, given the imperatives of the day. It was true to say that before parliamentary democracy other legal rights were established in successful countries. Property rights, the right to a trial by jury or peers, independent courts, professional merit-based public service. Democracy is more than an election where the biggest tribe may won and then do what it likes. Democracy is about choosing leaders, constitutions, the rule of law is about the parameters in which governments govern. All these arguments are still true because they are necessary pre-conditions for successful development as is democracy. Democracy has always had a hold on the people’s imagination, that’s why even the most vicious dictators feel obliged to call their countries - the democratic peoples republic of so and so. Many hold absurd elections still and claim 98% support. Why bother? Because of their need to claim legitimacy. Legitimacy for governments comes only from the people, and the people can only give that if there is a choice.

The many experts who think authoritarian governments can do better do not oppose democracy many say they are realists and argue, mass mob rule can incite ethnic hatred. Democracies electoral cycles and populists politicians put impossible pressures on resources to fund health education needs, create jobs urgently which can be counter-productive. They say build a middle class first. The most eloquent of this school is Fareed Zakaria who, in his best-seller ‘The Future of Freedom’, suggests that countries need to lift per capita income levels to US$6,000 and notes dramatically that once societies have achieve this income level, civil society and the middle class ensure that democracy works. No country that has ever reached this income level has ever rejected democracy and reverted. It becomes imbedded and grows. Therefore he suggests Western strategy should be to support ‘liberal autocracies’. Fair enough, but for how long? And is it true that only strong men and liberal force are successful in stamping out extremists who can exploit ethnic and religious differences?

The number of democracies is increasing - in 1988 two-thirds of states were undemocratic, now the proportion has been reversed. Totalitarianism societies are becoming authoritarian and for the first time in human history a majority of people are living in a system of self-government. A splendid new study entitled ‘The Democratic Advantage’ explains:

• 95% of the worst economic performances of the past 40 years were under non-democratic governments.
• virtually all refugee crises have been wrought by autocratic governments.
• 80% of all interstate conflicts are instigated by autocracies. They are more vulnerable to civil wars.
• There has never been a famine in a democracy with a free press.

Poor democracies and countries in transition to democracy have nearly always out-performed authoritarian countries. Consider what’s important. Life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, agricultural productivity, clean water, democracies get results 20% to 40% higher than their authoritarian counterparts. There’s a popular misconception that democracies have greater debts and bigger deficits, this is backed up by the evidence. Democracies are less,corrupt, more efficient because their leaders and civil services are more accountable and an active civil society, trader unions and free media are the watch-dogs, the cleansing air of transparency and the adaptability of democratic forces makes for better results. There is such a thing as a democratic peace, democracies do not go to war with each other. As the number of democracies has increased, the number of wars, indeed civil wars have dropped. Readers who are unconvinced will be asking, “What about China and India?”

The greatest expansion in China’s history has occurred because she has now embraced property rights and encouraged commerce. The quicker China has moved from a totalitarian regime to a more market economy, emulating the success of Japan and the Asian tigers, the better the results. This is a society in transition.

The China vs. India question is one of the great questions that only time will answer. China certainly faces more complex political problems in the future. India has in place the shock and change absorber of democracy now. It can change regimes peacefully, can China?