The\nquestion of democracy inhibiting development is an age old concern, which till\ndate can at best only be speculated and scrutinised without much more success\nthan the last person endeavouring the same. The ramification of this argument\ncan only be achieved, to whatever limited means possible, by flipping both\nsides of the coin and cataloguing the pros and cons of both democracy and the\nalternate authoritarian means of governance and analysing their significance\nwith regard to development index. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Economists\nand political scientists have long strived to unearth the secret to why some\neconomies grow at much faster rate than the others. While there has been a\nlong-standing temptation to extol a link between democracy and economic\nperformance, empirical evidence shows that the relationship between growth and\na democratic political system is weak at its best. As a matter of fact, based\non the last few decades of growth results, nations with autocratic rule have\nexperienced over the top growth rates in comparison to stable democracies. The\nbest instance to establish this argument is the contrasting development of\nIndia and China over the last half a century or so. While both the nations were\nalmost equally well off midway through the 20th century, the rate of development\nof China has skyrocketed to its being an economic and military superpower,\nwhereas calling India any of those is just \ndeceiving oneself, though during\nthe same time frame several non-democratic countries have been growth\ndisasters. With dearth of a suitable answer, several economists like Nobel\nlaureate Amartya Sen have been mentioning time and again that irrespective of\nthe results and impact on economic performance, the congenial effect of a\ndemocracy is certainly a more desirable outcome. This led to New York Times\nquestioning why economists are so \u201capologetic\u201d about democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On\npaper, the stability brought about by the relatively less volatile nature of a\ndemocratic government is a far safer bet for development than an authoritarian\ngovernment. Democracy for what it is, is a conflict resolving mechanism.\nDemocracy also avoids colossal mistakes like those in Mao Zedong\u2019s China. Even\nwhen mistakes are made, correcting them by taking a step back is not so difficult. Democracy also curbs the excesses\nof capitalism, making development more humane and sustainable. Several examples\nof inhumane modus operandi being put into service to achieve the desired\nresults to accomplish development can be found while studying about People\u2019s\nRepublic of China. Regularly people\u2019s rights and safety standards were violated\nby the said government to achieve their targets. In contrast, the development\nprocess in a democratic system is far more \norganised and people-centric than in non-democratic governments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So\nthese are the positives of a democratic government when it comes to\ndevelopment. But like every other aspect of life, there is another flip side of\nthe same coin. There are several discernible cons hindering development in such\nform of governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\naccountability of democratic government leads to time consuming and lack of\nruthless decision making which while satiating the needs of all social groups\nleads to an extremely slow and exhausting implementation of developmental\nplans. Furthermore, without political, centralisation, political competition\nunder democracy often encourages competitive populism or short-termism. This\nleads to only short term plans executed by the government mainly targeted to\nsatisfy the demands of various groups rather than extensive long term plans\naimed at development. Even when such a progressive plan is orchestrated by a\nparticularly astute political leader, his rivals berate him if it does not lead\nto immediate results or his plans are sabotaged during the change of\ngovernment. Many scarce resources are often frittered away in short-run\nsubsidies and handouts, which hurt the cause of long-run pro-poor investments\n(like in roads, irrigation, drinking water and electricity). It is a fact that\npoliticians in a democratic setup are responsible for the aspirations of the\ncommon people. But they take decisions contrary to the spirit of their mandate\nby sowing the seeds of fanaticism in the name of religion, caste or creed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some\ncommon examples of the major democracies posting uninspiring development rates\nare the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The average growth of\nthe US economy is only 2.2% without a single annual increase of 3% over the\npast 10 years. Half the growth benefits during the Obama administration\ndirectly went to the top 1% of the population leading to dissatisfaction among the lower sections of the society\nand the rise of Mr. Donald Trump as the\nnew President of the US. Similarly in Britain, the growth rate over 2017 is\nhalf the average over the last 25 years. The common scenario in both these\ncases is that the investments are stagnating along with a lot of foreign\nbusinesses cutting back on their investment due to various reasons like Brexit\nin UK or a lack of a favourable climate\nfor political decision making in USA. \n\nAfter going through the pros and cons of both democratic and autocratic\ngovernments, the initial question that whether democracy is a hindrance to\ndevelopment seems inappropriate because of the lack of a definitive answer\neluding everyone since this question has been asked. It is not the form of\ngovernment but the kinds of leaders at the helm of those governments that\nreally matter. Along with questioning the role of democracy in development,\nseveral other questions follow. Is the democratically elected leader capable\nenough? Do the opposition and general public in a democracy support a bold\ndecision making process without thwarting the same? Those bold decisions may or\nmay not have immediate effect on social and economic development graphs. Is the\nautocrat a humane person who considers the welfare of people and is selfless\nenough while planning the development of his nation without bringing anarchy?\nIf the answer to all these questions is yes, then the development will have\nminimum hindrance irrespective of whether the government is democratic or not.\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The question of democracy inhibiting development is an age old concern, which till date can at best only be speculated and scrutinised without much more success than the last person endeavouring the same. The ramification of this argument can only be achieved, to whatever limited means possible, by flipping both sides of the coin and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=477"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":478,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477\/revisions\/478"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}