Economic Development is a Prerequisite to Democratization - Essay Example

? 'Economic development is a prerequisite to democratisation.' In the 20th century, democratization was a major global phenomenon. Since 1970s, it really spread vigorously. The number of authoritarian countries in 1975 was approximated to be 68 percent worldwide. Towards the end of 1995, most countries had managed to adopt political and civil rights formal guarantees. This was possible after conducting competitive elections. During this period, the countries that were still authoritarian were estimated to be 26 percent only. Southern Europe became the first continent to experience the rapid political transformation in mid 1970s. It later spread to the Latin America and some specific parts of Asia in 1980s. Finally, in the late 1980s and even in the early 1990s, it moved to the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and some specific parts in the sub- Saharan Africa. In some countries, democratization is known to have a strong impulse, while in other countries it is considered as a weaker impulse or does not even exist. In addition, it has also been revealed that government and politics democratic forms have been common in some specific parts of the world and less in others. In conducting analysis, various individuals have applied the measures of democracy and development, which are different. This has led to several crucial questions that concerns democracy consequences, emergence, and maintenance being handled. Many different scholars have been committed in analyzing democracy economic requisites. This took place during Lipset (1959) early work. He stated that the chances of democracy being sustained are more likely when a country is a more well-to-do. Regardless of how democracy is measured and when used, the relationship between the democracy and the improved levels of economic development remains to be important and irrefutable. The outcome of this various findings is the weak claim of economic development and democracy just being associated with each other. On the other hand, strong claim has been established that economic development brings about democracy. This results in recognition of endogenous and exogenous theories. The relationship between democracy and economic development is the major existing argument. In this argument, endogenous and exogenous theory differences are examined. In the endogenous theory, democracy is described as being economic development function. According to this theory, development in poor countries increases the chances for democratic transition. The factors contributing to this include the increase in the number of middle class who are enlightened, changes in the land, income, and capital relative distribution. On the other hand, exogenous theory opposes this; they insist that democracy does not result from development. According to exogenous theory, longevity of democracy is maintained by the economic development. However, the theory suggests that from the authoritarian rule, the transition to democracy is exogenous to development. This theory suggests that democracy is established with the aid of different factors that are considered as being external to economic development processes. These factors include, elites in authoritarian regimes interacting strategically and relative power alterations, elites who are in the regime and those who are in the opposition having strategic interaction, and individual rights of citizenship being mobilized socially. In addition to this are international factors that are significant. These include diffusion, contagion, coercion, and even globalization. These exogenous explanations does not dismiss the existence of economic development, instead the argument is that in countries with high level of development establishment of democracy collapses. This way the process of democratization is just supported by economic development and not determine by it. In exogenous explanations, economic development is critically handled. It considers that once established, democracy continues in a country. The determining factor here is the economic development to remain high. Hence, this result in the conclusion that the democratization process is just supported by economic development and it does not determine it. According to Robinson (2006), there is no appropriate evidence of democracy being impacted by economic development. However, there is an existence of correlation between democracy and a given country’s income per capita. This is explained by the fact that the rate of prosperity and democracy of a country are determined by similar features which exist in the society. The major question that most individuals ask is whether democracies will find its Way when rich dictatorship collapses compared to the poor one. This can be illustrated by the country of Chile that was under dictatorship. It had a total of $ 3400 per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1985. In the same year, Benin was also under dictatorship rule and its per capita gross domestic product was estimated to be $1108. This amount was considered a third of Chile GDP. Regardless of their existing differences, the big question is whether a democracy transition could be attained in Chile and be decelerated in Benin. This is in regard to the existing differences in the levels of development. According to Przeworski and Limongi (1997), this would not be the case. The common question was why the rich countries unlike the poor ones had increased proportion of democracies. It was not clear whether the possibility of poor countries transition to democracy would be because of development. They referred this to be endogenous theory. Alternatively, whether once democracies are established it chances to fall into dictatorship remains minimal because of development. They describe this as exogenous theory. According to Przeworski and Limongi (1997), endogenous theory does not prevail while exogenous theory does. The two authors successfully influence several policy analysts and social scientists. They insist that empirical foundation does not exist in modernization theory. They further clarify that increase in a country’s income does not improve the probability of being democratic. Economic development which can be explained clearly by the increasing per capita income and increasing per capita energy consumption correlate positively with democratization. Economic development is comparable to capitalist development. Capitalist development is known to direct countries to attain liberal democracy, in that it fundamentally structures the historical route for countries to follow. In considering transition process to explain democratization, economic development assists in activating the actions of elites who are competing to come up with democratic negotiation. Liberal democracy can be impacted negatively by economic crises. This can be illustrated by the world wars that faced Europe. In addition, democratization is also affected by critical underdevelopment, for example in the case of sub-Saharan Africa. Several theorists have remained puzzled in trying to understand how economic development results in democratization. This has brought about division on the theoretical approaches. Individuals who are applying modernization approach have sought intervening variables. This variables act as mediators between economic development and democratization. According to Lipset (1959), the form of ‘class struggle’ is determined by economic development. This is the case in that, the existing inequalities between the high, the low class individuals are reduced, and the middle class strengthened. Lipset (1959) alleged that through these developments, conflicts and radical views was moderated, and was a privilege for the democratic parties’ development. However, other theorists have not agreed on the fact where liberal democracy is supported by reductions in class inequality. They have found it complicated to prove this given fact statistically. However, they have confirmed that high literacy rates and liberal democracy have positive correlations. Regardless of this, their main interest is focused on how democratic ideas are generated in the society by the economic development and the expansion of a given market economy. If a voter feels sovereign under a strong civil society, he or she can influence the pace of democratization. In the modernization studies, despite the presence of democratization historical waves, economic development is assumed universal and a process with uniformity. Hence, the countries who are striving to be well–to-do will be able to attain more democratization in the appropriate time while those which have become well -to -do have the likelihood of maintaining their liberal democratic state. The puzzle on how economic development results in democratization is handled differently in the structural theories. According to these theories, there is no uniformity in the process of economic development. The economy of each country has features that are distinctive and unusual. Certain character of the existing relations with economic processes that are transnational is included here. This is illustrated in the case studies historical studies that are well elaborated. The structural approach is more appropriate in explaining economic processes and their historical consequences as compared to the modernization approach. Hence, it can best identify the various underlying mechanisms in which economic development and democracy are linked. However, this theory is also faced with different difficulties. This includes difficulty in determining the direct historical links that exists between democracy and economical development. An individual has to trace the class structure caused by capitalist development, and from the democratization caused by the class structure. Another major difference in this as a structural theory is that economical development is not a consistent course. Therefore, it does not inevitably lead to democracy. There is a possibility that countries will be directed to fascism, democracy, or back to authoritarian form of politics as they proceed to be more well-to-do. In addition, democratic ideas in the society can be because of free trade and economic development. However, democracy can be slowed or destabilized by the same development. There is possibility for the same development to boost authoritarianism. Individuals in the labour market being handled as unnecessary good illustrate this. This opposes the widely known idea that in a context of social mutual dependence democratic citizens have their own rights. In addition, increasing levels of unemployment and unstable market economies makes individual to support the authoritarian kind of politics. In summary ambiguity can be found in the consequences of economic development politically. In the case of china, economic development does result in the country’s democracy. This is because authoritarian regime and the autocracies around the world suggest that individuals can ignore political liberalization and still be able to attain various economic development benefits. This is against the modernizationists’ theory where democracy is known to result from economic development. Other scholars suggest that democracy has to be attained first and economic development to be postponed. According to them, democracies are known to progress than non-democracies. Hence, in developing nations promotion of democracy should be done before concentrating on economic development and expansion. However, it is difficult to give proper explanation that some preconditions are required to develop a given country. Conclusion Consensus still exists between democracy and economic development general relationship. The existence of correlation between democracy and economic development has been proved. However, there is no proper clarity on whether democracy is because of economic development, or whether democracy as a system is appropriate to supervise economic growth policies. It is evident that economic progress and wealth improves the chances of democracy to last. In addition, human development can be made certain through democracy. Existence of instability in infrastructure and state incapacity reduces sustainability of democracy. It is attributed that democracy and development have extra links. It is believed by the international community that interdependence exists in democracy, human rights, and development. According to modernization theory that has been adopted by most of the scholars, it concludes that the economic development is a prerequisite for democracy. This theory is known to play a key role in the foreign policy of Americans towards countries that are still developing. Economic growth brings about the necessary preconditions of democracy that include industrialization, urbanization, widespread population with the proper education and literacy, creation of wealth in the nation and focused middle class who are committed to protect their rights and other public affairs issues. Lipset (1959) gives a clear illustration using European countries that are developed and the Latin American countries that are still developing. Through this illustration, he showed that there is an association between a country’s level of democracy and the Gross National Product (GNP) per capita. He concludes that democracy sustainability is most likely to happen in a well- to- do nation. Preworski and Limongi (1997) who insisted that democracy also further emphasize this and its persistence is shaped by a country’s development. They further added that even in poorer countries with less GNP per capita there could still be democracy survival. This is because the less Gross National Product (GNP per capita can still uphold economic development. However, those who insist that democracy should come first and economic development delayed suggest that promotion of democracy is a requirement for security and peace apart from being that of prosperity and development. References Lipset, S, M 1959, 'Some Social Requisites for Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy', The American Political Science Review, March, 53: 69-105. Przeworski, A, & Limongi, F 1997, “Modernization: Theories and Facts.” World Politics, Jan Vol.49, 155-183  Robinson, A 2006, ‘Economic Development and Democracy’, Annual Review of Political Science, June, Vol. 9, P. 503-527, Harvard University. Read More