Democracy and development

Photo: Reuters

In a few days India goes to the polls. Geopolitics and related interests aside the sheer number of its prospective voters, over 800 million set to choose more than 500 MPs over a month long election, is quite out of the ordinary. Only one other country could have matched this democratic spectacle with a comparable volume. However, China’s political, social and administrative structures and operations are distinct and distant from such a pageant.

Not only with the world’s largest number of poor but also with an extremely diverse population – ethnically, linguistically, culturally, economically, educationally, religiously and spiritually –  why is it that this basic democratic practice, to be able to choose your leaders and political parties for regular tenure without major upheaval, is being continued? What is the basis for such a faith in a system that, after all, does not benefit all and certainly not the underprivileged? It has not improved their economic circumstance with the speed that some benevolent dictatorships have been able to bestow on them.

It’s a system that promises fundamental goodies, at least in theory – it lets everyone share their views and debate issues, tries to make leaders accountable, develops institutions to administer law equally and to fight malaise – which are appealing. As a result, citizens of many non-or pseudo democratic nations are prepared to go many extra miles, even risking their lives to establish democracy or the idea of it within their societies.

There have been and there will be movements to earn democracy, even if those movements, whether in Cairo or in Kiev, would hardly ever be able to establish a true form of it, more often merely substituting old regimes with new ones.

But perhaps the tyranny of living under non-democratic systems, even when they produce rapid economic prosperity, is too dissatisfying to go on. And maybe this is why when street protests or mass dissatisfaction find a leader, faith in democracy also flares.

Later, we will look at this in the sub-continental context. But what does a democratic system give or offer to the ordinary citizen? Apart from the provision of basic rights (i.e. the right to vote, to speak their minds without fear) would it be able to ensure that other basic human necessities – e.g. food, clothes, habitat, medicine, education and work – are addressed?

This is where the critics of democracy, particularly those in the developing world, have established their strongest of claims – that democracy is too weak and slow a system to overcome the mammoth disadvantage facing these nations. The critics add that consultative and representative democracy, so lauded and sought after, can neither provide the single-minded determination nor the harsh administrative discipline required for economic progress.

Park Chung-hee, a general who came to power through a coup in 1961 and ruled South-Korea for 18 years, toppled only by an assassin in 1979, is regarded by some (perhaps with some evidence) as the founder of economic success in today’s South-Korea. Or another Asian legend, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, is similarly considered as the author of recent economic successes in Malaysia.

Yet while both leaders are revered by a sizeable part of their respective populations, there remain others who hate them for their totalitarian rule and the immense suffering and repression inflicted on their oppositions. If, as it is claimed, Mr Chung-hee and Dr. Mohamad have achieved phenomenal economic success for their nations they may have gained it by suppressing civil liberties and favouring powerful entrepreneurs. Sometimes critical commentaries in similar vein are, in the West, directed to Chinese economic success.

But in cases of South Korea and Malaysia the autocrats’ rules and in particular their subsequent departures led to success. The most pertinent point perhaps is that rapid economic transformation of these regions was made possible by visionary despots who to their credit liberalised financial systems, cut corporate taxes, privatised government enterprises, ushered in foreign investment and improved education and employment opportunities.

It is not so much that a democratic system cannot facilitate such economic reforms but, rather that the consultative processes and the numbers needed to pass legislation are rarely there. (Think of the troubles President Obama has to bear to implement his health insurance scheme). Even when numbers are achieved for the smooth passage of legislations, significant lag-time is required to follow due process (e.g. open tenders).

Nonetheless, they are the very point of having a transparent democracy. However, in recent times even within the West where democracy is firmly rooted it has not been making citizens happy. Administrators of the system continue to disappoint people. Their follies are wide ranging from mishandling of public interest to misleading the public. In fact, their lack of integrity is possibly the reason for a renewed doubt and dysfunction within democratic systems. Luckily, the West over the years has developed institutions which shield the system from catastrophic collapse.

Back to the sub-continent. About the same time last year, there was similar anticipation about Pakistan’s election; would it go ahead on time, would the USA or the army try to predetermine its outcome, would the population participate due to a lack of trust in the electoral process and threats from various militant groups.

Yet, these anxieties were overcame by two key aspirations – a wish to see a democratically elected government complete its full term, which had never happened there, and to see a ‘third force’ emerge based on the support of a popular urban youth group backing a youthfully honest-appearing leader when the party’s campaign centrepieces were themed as: ‘to get rid of corruption’, ‘to collect tax from the wealthy’, ‘to get rid of two-party dynastic rules’. Much to their chagrin the ‘third force’ only managed to win one of the provincial governments as one of the two traditional parties won an overwhelming majority.

The Indian election presents similarities. The prime minister elect, it would seem, is already a forgone conclusion, is popular primarily for sound economic management credentials and a Hindutva appeal. If the latter can easily be understood given his party’s ideological base and an alleged involvement in a major communal violence, the key reason for his ascendant support is based on his previous economic performance as the chief minister of his state.

Apparently businesses and corporations love his willingness to facilitate investment and economic reforms. His decisiveness to hurry projects along (brushing off laws protecting environmental, land or labour rights which are perceived as major obstacles to launch the economy on a path to rapid advancement) stands out in sharp contrast to the outgoing prime minister’s sluggishness.

Mr. Singh’s last term has been marred by numerous corruption scandals and his inability to get economic reforms through. Few would have expected this from the architect of ‘open India’ (in 1991, as an apolitical finance minister, Mr Singh introduced structural reforms which liberalised the Indian economy, and he is the only prime minister of India since Jawaharlal Nehru to return to power after completing a full five years) back in 2009 when he and the Congress Party were voted back for a second term.

Now popular support is being rallied for a ‘third force’ which wants to address similar issues (like the Pakistani election) such as corruption, collecting tax or achieving equality. But their success, even to be the main opposition party, is doubtful. Like the Pakistan People’s Party the Congress is expecting a drubbing at the polls, but we will have to wait and see whether the Aam Aadmi Party can secure the second position. It rather seems that they are a reaction to the political woes, not quite a solution.

The intrigue and intricacies stemming out of issues during an Indian election can be subject of a post-doctoral thesis, however, the parties which can focus on themes such as reform, infrastructure and employment for the millions, above anything else would do well in a poll. But is it possible to deliver such reforms without bipartisan support in a democracy? Yes, if one party wins absolute majority which is rare. As Mr. Singh has found out even winning consecutive terms without absolute majority could mean chaos and political stymie.

Even so, these constrains embedded in the Westminster style parliamentary democracy keeps any ‘would-be autocrat’ in check, perhaps at the cost of rapid economic development. Unfortunately, other compromises such as a presidential system or a proportional system may not be optimal either; but their advantages and disadvantages should be explored.  I think Asian nations tend to get behind ‘a leader’, due to which a customised presidential model may work better.

I have not set out to offer an answer. Theorising or opining hardly provides answers; practical solutions or fixes usually emerge over time according to the varying set of conditions. However, I am of a generation of Bangladeshi who in school years craved democratic participatory elections, and became ecstatically dreamy about a prosperous nation after it reinstalled democracy, albeit very naive but with the zeal of youth.

As my generation lives through the disappointment I wonder about the dream of the current generation? How are they reading the political and economic situation of the country, especially in the context of achieving rapid economic development?

In a time when it is reasonable to doubt the effectiveness of a democratic system, however imperfect, and specially its ability to foster rapid economic wellbeing, I hope they notice that for every modern Malaysia there is a Zimbabwe.