‘Economic development is a necessary and sufficient condition for democracy’ Free Essay Example

The last thirty years has seen an unparalleled growth in the spread of democracy. The growth, identified by Huntington as the ‘Third Wave’ has driven academics to question what independent variables are required for successful democratisation. The concept of ‘democracy’ is inherently confusing, thus before we can contribute to the debate we must first define the key term democracy. Whilst political theorists disagree as to what constitutes a democracy this essay will follow Samuel Huntington’s procedural definition that a society is democratic when those who make major decisions in society have been chosen through free, fair and regular elections..

Thus the aim of this paper will be to assess whether a certain level of economic development (defined in terms of rising capita income, growing per capita energy consumption, etc.) is “the necessary platform upon which democracy can become established and flourish” (Leftwich, 1996, 47) .

Theories of democratization come under the guise of three main theoretical approaches which include In search of democracy’s preconditions we often come across a multitude of factors that are essentially conducive to democracy modernization, transition and structural theories.

An explanatory factor is a condition, structure or process that comparative analysis suggests is associated with, or causes, democratization. Many such factors receive attention in all three different theories (Potter et al, 1997, pg24).

Modernisation theorists assert that economic development makes democracy possible subscribing to the highly influential argument that countries must meet specific social and economic requisites necessary for a successful democratisation. In addition other research traditions, notably transitional and structural theorists repute this assertion and point to events in the 1980’s and 1990’s that challenge this claim.

However cases in Africa do seem to indicate that poverty or more properly, inequality is an obstacle to substantive democratisation. The Middle East will also be considered. Democracy remains largely absent in this region despite many states being economically suitable for a transition. While many rest on the common sense notion that democracy transcends out of economic development, contemporary views have challenged this. Now a new orthodoxy prevails which systematically connects democracy to development in an entirely new way. It contends that democratic good governance is not a consequence or product of economic development but a necessary condition of development. Thus it is affirmed that democracy could be inserted and instituted at almost any stage in the developmental process, albeit a states social structure, economic condition, political traditions and external relations (Leftwich, 1996, pg5).

This paper shall begin therefore by investigating the classic argument that economic development is conducive to democracy put forward by Seymour Martin Lipset in his 1961 book ‘Political Man’. Lipset first observed that democracy was related to economic and as Przeworski and Limongi points out, there are two reasons why this relation may hold out: either, democracies may be more likely to emerge as countries develop economically (endogenous), or they may be established independently of economic development but have a greater shelf-life in developed countries (“exogenous”). In response, the work of structural and transitional theorists will be analysed and evaluated in order to gain a well structured debate. One must then distinguish whether the modernization theory of economic development is mutually dependent or exclusive.

The discussion is by no means explicit or rudimentary, thus a number of issues need to be discussed, analysed and evaluated. However, the thesis proposed in this essay is while it may be inaccurate to label economic development a ‘necessary and sufficient’ condition for democracy, due to the role of other variables, its presence is likely to considerably increase the chances for successful democratisation. It may be more appropriate to conclude that economic development represents a ‘probabilistic conception of causation’ as its influence will usually lead to democracy, but may also be aided by the presence of other independent variables.

In all explanations of democratization economic development features in some shape or form. The modernization theory which can be broadly defined as casual chains, sequences of industrialisation, urbanization, economic growth, education, communication and political incorporation, among innumerable others: a progressive accumulation of social changes that ready a society to proceed to its culmination, democratization (Przeworski et al,1997, pg156). Lipset was a firm advocate and emphasises the vital role economic development plays in democratisation, seen as the last stage of modernization (Sodaro, 2001, pg352). His hypothesis contends that economic development would enhance democratic institutions by creating a broad middle class with cross cutting cleavages. This class progression would then have the effect of diluting conflict, moderating extremist views and encouraging the formation of democratic parties (Potter et al, 1996, pg24).Lipset maintained that this chain of events would have the knock on effect of producing a civil society that would push for regime change. One can deduce that the modernization approach sees economic development as a catalyst and necessary condition to consolidating democracy in the long run as societal changes such as higher levels of education, increased levels of communication and in general modernity enhance its sustainability.

Kitching maintains that “materially poor societies cannot produce the democratic life which is an essential pre-requisite for the creation of socialist democracies. Only economic growth- through industrialisation- can provide the platform on which democratic values, institutions and processes can be sustained”(Leftwich, 1996, pg9). One would have to suppose this is warranted, as what legitimacy does a democracy have if its citizens are starving, lack sanitation and the assess to basic education. An example of this can be identified in Africa where several states average GNP per capita less than $100 per year. The existence of poverty, the size of the rural economy, the small bourgeoisie and the high levels of cultural and linguistic heterogeneity conflate to create an unfertile ground for democracy to emerge. In contrast historical examples show how economic development has produced democracy in the long run. Under the auspices of growth-promoting authoritarian regimes, Chun’s South Korea and Chiang Kai Shek’s Taiwan became two of Asia’s best known ‘Tiger economies’ which eventually through a chain of causation transcended into democracies. From 1960 to the 1990’s their annual rates of growth (GNP per capita) were the highest in the world, with the exception of Botswana Economic development led to higher education levels, living standards and the provision services and public goods possible. This created a dense and complex civil society capable of managing and administrating democracy (Potter et al, 1997, pg236).

Despite of strong correlations exhibited between economic development and democracy, the modernization theory does not account for the many anomalies where countires progress to democracies without being economically developed, the classic example being India. The reverse situation can also be observed in countries such as Saudi Arabia and China, which demonstrate high levels of economic affluence yet reside under authoritarian rule. This has led to Potter et al stating that “the political consequences of economic growth are ambiguous” (Potter et al, 1997, pg 25). Thus to propose that economic development exclusively is a necessary and sufficient condition for democracy would be myopic, consequently individual cases demand a conjunctural explanation, rather than one which treats them as separate abstract cases (Parry et al, 1994, pg176).

Potter et al. consider China and India, the two giants of Asia, to demonstrate how “different political cultures, colonial legacies, party development and civil societies explain such contrasts more effectively” (Potter et al, 1997, pg203). In spite of India being less economically developed than China the existence of its pluralist political culture, its prolonged encounter with British colonial rule, its dense and autonomous civil society and party system, centred on the Congress party, are more attune to liberal democratic values than China’s (Potter et al, 1997, pg208).

Thus we can see that other theoretical approaches have much to offer in explaining the necessary and sufficient conditions for democracy. The Latin American experience challenged all presumptions about preconditions and it suggested that if there was a relationship between economic and political development it was not a straightforward one. Complex patterns of regime change were evident between 1970 and 1995 which saw dominant patterns of re-democratization, liberalisation and democratic deepening, all aspects of the Latin American experience of the “Third Wave” of democratisation. In the 1980’s economies in the region collapsed, which had the effect of significantly reducing production and ending imports. In this period of crisis and poverty, many countries including Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador ditched authoritarian regimes and turned to democracy. In Guillermo O’Donnell’s highlighted that socio-economic modernization failed to enhance the probability of democracy in Latin American context because popular-sector pressure became increasingly into conflict with socio-economic constraints on policy choice (O’Donnell, 1978, pg32).