Democracy and development

Democracy and development are two highly contentious issues in the development study. In general, democracy is a political system that is based on the right of all individuals to participate in the government, and often includes electing representatives of the people (Mansbach & Rafferty 2008, p. 151). Granting individuals with opportunity to choose, decide, or influence any decision taken by governments or organisations which directly or indirectly have an impact on their lives is an important aspect of development.

Development is defined as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy which encompass political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security (Development as freedom by A. Sen 1999). Sen further suggests that development is not just about economic growth but rather as means to expand the aforementioned freedoms.

Development is thus about creating “an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives” (UNDP 2009). This article will be divided into two parts. First, it will analyse the relationship between democracy and development, and second, it will demonstrate how development and democracy can serve as tools to address poverty.

In order to understand the relationship between development and democracy, it is essential to understand orthodox perspective of development and the current debates on development itself.

Many eastern scholars argue that there is no relationship between economic development and democracy because countries can still achieve considerable economic growth in the absence of democracy (Dead aid: why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa by D. Moyo 2009). Democracy and human rights are perceived to be western concept and therefore are incompatible with eastern values (Asian Values and Human Rights : A Confucian Communitarian Perspective by W.M. Theodore de Bary 2009). Such arguments are vigorously invoked by leaders in some Asian countries notably Singapore, Malaysia, China, Thailand, South Korea, China and Indonesia. They use the concept of Confucianism to explain the increase of economic performance.

They argue that some of the individual interests or freedoms should be forgone in order to allow states to pursue economic development of their citizens (“Human Rights and Asian Values” by A. Sen, The New Republic, July 1997). This argument has been constantly used by states in some Asian countries to justify their actions toward limiting individual rights.

It cannot be denied that economically China has outstandingly performed and has lifted millions of its people out of poverty in just less than 30 years. In fact China is considered to be one of biggest economies to challenge the USA and Europe. In spite of that, human rights abuses such as illegal detentions and persecution including death are widely documented.

The suppression of human rights activists in Tibet is one of the negative sides of China’s economic development model (Human Rights Watch 2009). Similarly, countries like Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew emphasised the concept of “Asian Values” whereby individual freedoms were curtailed by the states in the name of economic growth. Even though the economic transformation is highly noticeable in these countries, individual freedoms are constantly ignored.

In Singapore, for example, the government has enormous capabilities to limit citizen rights and to handicap the political opposition. In addition, many migrant workers in Singapore suffered various forms of abuses including physical and sexual violence, food deprivation, and confinement in the workplace (Human Rights Watch (PDF 52KB) 2009). This seems to suggest that countries can still achieve economic growth and improve the living standard of the people without having concerns with individual freedoms.

This notion of Confucianism, however, has been refuted by scholars such as Amartya Sen who claim that in facts there is no empirical evidence which suggests that the rights of individuals are a hindrance to development. While economic development does create some middle class in China, many rural dwellers continue to confront social problems.

A recent report suggests that suicide rates among China’s rural women are the highest in the world: many commit suicide by drinking pesticide (Chuanjiao 2007). The report further suggests that immediate problems such as stress and depression emanating from family disputes, low education levels and restricted social communication are among the leading causes of death both in rural and urban areas of China.

Sen, in fact, argues that development is much more than just economic growth. In his book on Development as Freedom, Sen argues that development is defined as freedom. According to Sen the objective of development is to enhance human capabilities which encompass political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency and security. Sen further argues that development will not bring prosperity to the people if the aforementioned freedoms are constantly denied.

Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 25 (1) states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”. This implies that development is not just about increasing economic growth or technological modernisation but it is about the fulfillment of political, social and economic needs in order to achieve a proper, decent standard of living.

Others even suggest that development is about expanding people’s choice so that it enables them to lead the lives they value. It is not just the economic growth, but rather it is about expanding peoples’ choice (UNDP 2009). Therefore, this can be argued that development is achieved when people are given an opportunity to exercise their rights and freedoms. This seems to suggest that there is strong relationship between democracy and development and in fact they are the key to reducing poverty.

There are two possible reasons why democracy and development are the key to fighting poverty. First, democracy strengthens state institutions such as justice system and law enforcement and respects the rights of individuals to directly participate in the process of development (Millennium Challenge Corporation 2007). Political scientists argue that though high income will not necessarily generate democracy, in fact, the transformation to democracy accelerates economic development, and the increase of economic development will in turn strengthen democratic state institution (Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World by Przeworski et al 2000; and Introduction to global politics by Mansbach & Rafferty 2008). Direct participation of people in development means people are not the object of development rather the actor.

Democratic government implies that they are accountable to their people while pursuing the development goals. These goals are envisaged by the Millennium Development Goals set for 2015 which include - reduce poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, improve maternal health, combat diseases such as HIV-Aids and malaria, access to safe drinking water and increase global trade (United Nations 2009). In contrast, development will be an illusion if the above mentioned goals are not met and their fundamental rights are constantly denied.

Development cannot be achieved while, for example, the rights of Aborigines are denied; the high rise buildings are still surrounded by large slums such as in Mumbai; workers are forced to work long working hours in factories with little consideration for their health and security such as Nike workers in Indonesia and mining workers in China; or where the local environment is constantly degraded by multinational companies.

Second, democracy and development in essence produces: a) solid democratic institutions responsive to the needs of the people; b) sound economic growth policies; c) enhanced human capital; d) and improved infrastructure and all of these are preconditions to economic growth and reduce poverty (MCC 2007). Over the last few years, international development institutions such as the World Bank and IMF admit that many developing countries continue to suffer endemic poverty due to the absence of capital investment, crippling debts, disease and ill health, political instability, lack of education, ecological environment and inappropriate technology.

These problems can only be addressed if the poor are assisted to climb “the ladder of economic development” and to take the lead in the development process (The end of poverty: how we can make it happen in our lifetime by J.Sachs 2005). Thus, the provision of enough resources and skills to local and disadvantage groups will encourage active participation and directly contribute to development process.

This approach has been widely reflected in the work of many international development agencies such as the UN and the World Bank. For instance, for developing countries to be qualified for MCC funding to reduce poverty, they must meet strict criteria such as upholding the political rights, civil liberties, and accountability. This has been rigorously monitored by MCC in order to unsure recipient countries fully implement the above principles (MCC 2009). MMC further suggest countries that are qualified for MMC funding are required to set priorities to enhance economic freedom, invest in their citizens, encourage wider public participation, improve accountability, and combat corruption.

This means that while the government is taking the lead in implementing the development program, strong partnership with civil society, the donor countries, private sectors, and other development stakeholders is an important element which assists government in fighting poverty effectively. This can be argued that democratic institutions and economic development are interrelated where both tend to complement each other in the fight of poverty. Poverty cannot be overcome by countries under the control of despotic regimes.

In brief, it can be argued that there is strong relationship between democracy and development. While development is about expanding individual freedoms through enhancement of people’s choice to directly engage in development process, democracy will further strengthen state institutions in order to provide protection to individual rights and encourage greater participation in the development process.

Individual freedoms must be vital to any democratic government and should not be exchanged just for pure economic growth. Instead, economic advancement should be seen as a means to advance individual freedoms. Enhancing individual freedoms has been the key to eradication poverty.

Though some suggest that there is no relationship between development and democracy, this concept has been countered by many political scientists. This is because without democracy individual freedoms will be undermined as governments are less accountable and transparent to their citizens. This seems to suggest that democracy and development are two key concepts that are interconnected and can be used as affective tools to address poverty.