Democracy and Development: Identifying Existing Relationships - Term Paper Example

Democracy and Development: Identifying Existing Relationships Introduction Democracy and development are two general terms with encompassing world-wide definitions. Development, as a whole, had been basically conceived out of a nation’s resources and management thereof. This management used to take form through aspects of economics, finance and other asset-related systems. However, new-found issues on these aspects’ reliability to foster profit and the consequent development had posed a number of other possible determinants of development. These determinants include the social, environmental and political parties. While the resources were profound affairs of the environmental sector, the combined forces of social and political sectors harness the mobilization of such resources. This harness or control refers to the governing body of the nation - the type of regime. Consequently, this leads to the ultimate question amongst other inquiries - the ability of this type of regime to conduct the progressive path of a nation’s development. The international trend of transitioning or adopting democratic regimes, which started from the western nations, had put in question its relationship with development. This paper presents the different relationships existing between democracy and development as well as the feasibility of nonexistence between the two. The necessity to identify existing relationships between democracy and development particularly spawned from the need of ascertaining the strengths and weaknesses of this bond. This certainty aims to pacify decision-makers, reformers, and ultimately, the citizens of the nations. The Concepts Before identifying the relationships existing between development and democracy, it is essential to study each of their independent concepts. Development, in its most basic and primary principle, is a wide combination of progress consisting of upgrades and improvements. This wide expansion of a nation’s development is inclusive of environment, economic, financial, social and political progress, as defined by the International Panel on Democracy and Development or IPDD (Boutros-Ghali, et al., 2002). In this definition, every aspect of a nation’s framework had to undergo development to contribute to the nationwide development - no aspect can be left behind. This high developmental status, if viewed through a single time-frame, can be considered too utopian. In reality, economic development cannot simultaneously effect on the nation’s financial development although they are closely interrelated. The same can be said for other aspects. Thus, it is important to view a nationwide development through longer time-frames and divide them among short- and long-term developments. Furthermore, developments have to be well-communicated to afford recognition from the nation’s citizens. Democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government that is famously and immediately linked with liberty. Its most accepted definition is the combination of a ‘political system and an embodied culture,’ as again defined by the IPDD (Boutros-Ghali, et al., 2002). As a political system, democracy gives the people the autonomy to choose among the different proposals coming from elected and representative parties. This type of government calls for much civilian participation amongst other regime types. The elected officials filter, prioritize and evaluate the civic responses as well as decide through systems such as a constitution. These civic responses are most helpful in determining the needs of the citizens. However, due to the fact that participation from a lot of parties are involved, it is quite understandable how debates and other issues usually take hold of the length of time until a particular consensus is derived. Meanwhile, democracy as an ‘embodied culture’ is expanded by IPDD as a “state of mind that fosters tolerance and respect...” (Boutros-Ghali, et al., 2002, p.10). This definition plainly explains how citizens from democratic nations act or their bases thereof - ‘tolerance and respect’. Their practice or application of freedom, which a democratic system generously allows, has to be based in these two to be consistent with the true meaning of democracy. Otherwise, democracy that is justice-deprived serves no real purpose to its citizens, only to the elect. Furthermore, to participate in a politically democratic system, the citizens themselves had to embody this democracy. This democratic-based participation can also be called as the “free participation of citizens” (Boutros-Ghali, et al., 2002, p.11). Thus, in truth and as a whole, democracy has to consist of the complete culture-embodiment and political system. Dependent Argument The aforementioned definitions therefore identify development as a nation’s condition (positive) and democracy as a ‘means’ to achieve that condition (developed). The most recognized relationship derived of these two is their characterized dependence: wherein development is directly dependent to democracy or inversely, democracy comprises the “essential conditions for development” (Burnell & Randall, 2008; Leftwich, 2000, p.127). The dependence between development and democracy shows democracy as a significant catalyst of development. It presupposes that democracy has a positive impact in the nation’s development. This can be a safe proposition for those who view other forms of government, like the authoritarian, as restrictive in fostering the economy and all other aspects of the nation; consequently, this hampers the nation’s development. But this is not universal in idea and there are too many exceptions to accept this view as true like China’s case. Another similar view of this dependent relationship relies on the democratic body’s ability to ‘generate development’ (Przeworski, et al., 1996 cited in Leftwich, 2000, p.146). This type of relationship suggests the symbiotism between the two and the possible decay when the other one wreaks havoc. Apparently, this view presents democracy as a limit: wherein democracy can no longer thrive when it can no longer affect development. Consequential Argument The second existing relationship is the consequential type which views democracy as the consequent of development. This transition as explained by the modernization theory, inculcates that “once a nondemocratic regime acquires a certain level or ‘threshold’ of economic development and social maturation, it will inevitably become a democracy;” therefore, it treats democracy as a “crowning achievement of a long process of modernization” (Menocal, et al., 2007, p.5). In this view, modernization is equated to development and democracy to ‘economic development and social maturation.’ It also presupposes that the democratic nation was previously a nondemocratic one. This restrictive argument therefore limits the transition to nondemocratic nations and assumes that existing democratic nations had already attained development. Consequently, this view solely puts the relationship between democracy and development along the borders of developed and developing countries. The modernization theory seemingly prospects development as a goal, instead of a journey altogether. This view can potentially create confusion on the ideal orientation of sustainable development and muddle the expected benefits thereof. Thus, this view invariably limits the development orientation, aside from narrowing transition processes to nondemocratic statuses. Negative Existential Argument Another predominantly recognized relationship between the two concepts is characterized by the negative or inappropriate elements of democracy in relation to development - a negative existential argument. One such negative element was identified by Khan (2002, cited in Burnell & Randall, 2008, p.285) in the Debate: Democracy and Development as the developing countries’ politicians whose ‘rent-seeking behavior’ asphyxiates any possibility of development. The relationship between the two concepts becomes exhaustive when democracy’s governing element gears decisions towards personal development instead of national development. Democracy’s freedom is somehow irresponsibly used, and citizens are abused by the lack of development by which they are the beneficiaries. The second negative democratic element is Grugel’s (2002, cited in Burnell & Randall, 2008, p.285) ‘expansive nature of democratic models’ by which development is not effectively launched. The relationship between development and democracy is deterred by democracy’s broad scope which is not necessarily required in certain developments. This broad scope itself sets higher and bigger expectations for developments; unfortunately, high-developments do not occur overnight. High developments occur under long time-frames, which is why short- and long-term developments should be publicly highlighted. This democratic element is highly dependent in the estimated and expected development. Apparently, the inconsistencies between these two developments, which is attributable to democracy’s expansive model, severe its potential ties with developments. Third negative existential element is the “sensitivity and timing” to which economic reforms are made and implemented (Halperin, et al., 2005, p.135). This element pertains to the ability of the democratic citizens and the governing body to formulate point-specific and efficient time-framed reforms. Point-specific reforms heavily rely on the ability of the government to diagnose and assess the needs of the economy, society, and environment. Then the government has to take into consideration the different manner of addressing each need -- through a macro- or micro-target implementation. The type of implementation is crucial in itself since there are a lot of very different factors at play, and these factors had to be suitable (with each other) to guarantee its timely effects. Moreover, the government has to ensure the prior needs and the ability of the implementation to affect in the short- or long-run. The time orientation of reforms allows the governing body to evaluate favorability, which is a choice between short-term effects that partially pacify citizen’s hunger for development, or long-term effects that promote sustainable development. Thus, in this relationship between democracy and development, the latter greatly depends on the former’s orientation of ‘sensitivity and timing.’ Non-Existential Argument While there are negative aspects in democracy that negate its relationship with development, there are also existing views that does not look at democracy as the sole determinant for development. In Chan’s (2002, p.28) Liberalism, Democracy and Development, the view that “development depends on other variables” is asserted. This view holds true for nations whose governing body does not consist of elected officials or whose implementing body does not rely on the political aspect but on others such as cultural (e.g., ethnic tribes) or religious sectors. These ‘other variables’ may also include the timing for such development, the players of the development (who may not be from the democratic sector), the preparation laid for the development, the development’s appropriateness for the nation’s cultural, religious or social background, et cetera. Looking through these variables evades whatever negative or positive impact democracy may have on development. Furthermore, this view extends the impact of other aspects in a nation’s framework and presents its viability under each nation’s central orientation. Another similar stance is Leftwich’s (2002, cited in Burnell & Randall, 2008, p.285) view: “a truly developmental state needs to be insulated from society and may not be a democracy.” This view imputes society as the core of any development, regardless of the regime type -- be it democratic or not. The validity of this view is based from the fact that other aspects of the nation -- the economic, financial, environmental, or political aspect, are all rooted on the societal aspect. Thus, the society is seen as the prime planner and mover of development. However, society to greatly affect the development has to be very organized in planning and synchronized in implementing. The society, which consists of the nation’s whole, has to move at the same direction and at the same time -- which is easier said than done. Development, based on this view, then implicitly requires the society of the nation to be united. Otherwise, division will push and pull everyone at different directions and forestall any possible development. Conclusion The polarity of existence and nonexistence of relationships between democracy and development provides possibilities and no conclusions. A lot of different perspectives are on play and sway the identification at different angles. The only certainty here is that development is every nation’s goal. Development is what fosters a civilization’s existence, and is the primary measure of progression. To attain such was never an easy feat -- the dynamism and uniqueness of each nation have made sure of that. Moreover, this complex design of nations had collected different bases for co-existence: the dependence of development to a democratic regime; the consequent democracy after the attained level of development; and the various negative elements of democracy that impend the occurrence of development. The opposite of this co-existence is the non-existence of any direct relationship between democracy and development. The varying co-existences of democracy and development established their relationship within the parameters of time interdependent abilities and negative tendencies. Establishment through these parameters, were the collection of observations, responses and lessons from the reality of development under a democratic reign. This collection is valuable in laying the foundations of the relationship between democracy and development if one is to take the existential stance. On the other hand, the non-existential argument recognizes other significant determinants and introduces their impact on development. References Boutros-Ghali, B. et al., 2002. The interaction between democracy and development (ED-2002/WS/34). Paris: UNESCO. Burnell, P.J. & Randall, V., 2008. Politics in the developing world. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chan, S., 2002. Liberalism, democracy, and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halperin, M.H., Siegle, J.T. & Weinstein, M.M., 2005. The democracy advantage: how democracies promote prosperity and peace. Abingdon: Routledge. Leftwich, A., 2000. States of development: on the primacy of politics in development. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Menocal, A.R., Fritz, V. & Rakner, L., 2007. Analysing the relationship between democracy and development: defining basic concepts and assessing key linkages. In: ODI (Overseas Development Institute), Wilton Park Conference on democracy and development. West Sussex, UK 23-25 October 2007. ODI: London. Read More