Development and Democracy

We all know that.. well atleast even if its not scientifically proven than also it just somehow appeals to the common sense that “Peace is a pre-requisite for democracy” Though certain ( only few as far as I know) have stated otherwise; citing African states example on how they are progressing (I think thats just on the economic front) despite being entangled in conflicts and facing civil wars. Hence these scholars have refuted the claim that peace and stability are a pre-requisite for a country to develop.
Whatever’s the case, this whole debate is rather simple as there is a link between peace and development.

Now, I would like to know whether there is any link between development and democracy. Lets take the example of Pakistan. Does lack of democracy hampers our development. To further narrow it down, ( I am by no means an authority on economic matters), does it affect the country in material/monetary terms?

We can take up development and democracy with regard to development of the society later on. But it would be great if u guys can contribute your thoughts on this issue.

It is an interesting topic. Without getting into it in too much detail. I would begin by saying that for the short term, you do not need democracy to accompany growth (I am assuming you are suggesting through a market driven economy). but in the long term, you will need to have it. Because as the populace gets economic freedom, they want political freedom as well. the converse is true as well...

Good answer Mats, pretty much my thinking on the matter as well. In the short term I don't see any better alternatives to Musharraf but in the end military will support it's own interests ahead of the people so we will need a functioning democracy somewhere down the line.

hmm, interesting MAtty. Well, I would like to leave the human factor/ Sen's contention out of it for the time being.
So, talking abt this issue, how do you see Indian case fit in all this. I mean India has been a democracy for the longest time except for a brief interlude, however, it only opened up in 1991.So, do you mean to say that it was the pressure from the masses that led, NArshima Rao and MAnmohan Singh to undertake Parestroika and Glasnost within the Indian economic sphere. Wasn't it the changed international politico-economic situation that led him to take that drastic measure?

Taking it from here and without getting into too much economics lest it eludes me, so my second question to you is,
- Do you think there has been development ( lets take eco-dev for the time being) ever since the liberalization took place?

umm.. I think I need to see the Chinese case as well... :--(

I follow the old school of thought coming out of the colonial era that the military is the sole institution that can firmly establish discipline in a country. Take an example of all the Asian tigers. None of them until the 1990's had democracy. Heck Taiwan had a 1 party system till the turn of the century.

South Korea had military dictatorship after dictatorship and look at where they are now. Growing and solid growth even though the foundations are built on extremely sensitive grounds.

Take Pakistan as an example. The two Military Regimes of Ayub and Zia saw a great deal of economic growth. We were quoted by the world bank as being a success story economically etc. What they refer to as the asian tigers now.

Malaysia doesnt have a democracy. It has what will Inshallah be in a couple of years a true democracy. But for a very long time, it was a one man/one party rule.

Indonesia and Suharto for 40 years. The country is great. I loved living there. Heck it rivaled Australian cities in many respects.

Singapore is a developed country, heck its PCGDP is higher than most western european states. It has always had a 1 party undemocractic process of goverance.

The one thing all these countries had that say the African countries dont have is a leadership with vision and that do good for the country.

Suharto was so bloody corrupt, but he and his family invested all their money in the country. The highways around Jakarta heck even in Yogjakarta are better than stuff i have seen in the US.

Political freedom means jack in the end. Singapore is an example. A strict militaristic society on real freedom of speech. South Korea and Taiwan same thing. If people can satisfy their basic needs on Maslows pyramid., they will compromise their moral freedoms for other things.

'heck' good CM and thanks. I will be back after a day or two. MAtty seems missing. Your points make sense, however just on that account one cannot endorse dictatorship. I looked into the East Asian examples too, thanks nonetheless for bringing them up again.

The discourse on development and democracy stems from the hackenyed use by our politicians of such statements as , lack of democracy leads to this, hampers development.....

So, that means one can safely say that economic development is independent of the form of government...? democracy or no democracy makes little difference...However, in the present scenario don't you think that the case is a little different now as investment, trade, aid is tied to the form of government a state has?

An interesting read by S.M. Naseem. I thought I should add it to this thread.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/11/ebr.htm

Democracy and development

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Minerva: *
An interesting read by S.M. Naseem. I thought I should add it to this thread.

....

Democracy and development
[/QUOTE]

Thanks to Minerva for starting a constructive discussion. Yes I went through Mr. Naseem's article. Unfortunately he ends up giving vague statements like:

[QUOTE]
*by S.M. Naseem: *
If Musharraf were undertaking serious economic and social reforms, and was taking the country forward, I would support him, notwithstanding his denial of 'democracy' to the people.

[/QUOTE]

What does he mean by economic reforms here? We definitely need to read and learn from Amritia Sen, Zakaria, and Hernandes Desoto, but the solution to Pakistan’s economic vows lies in Pakistan and not in Bharat.

Talking about Pak’s economy, there happens to be two schools of thought. The first that says social development comes first while the other claims that economic development leads the way.

There is a third school of thought that may prefer an emphasis on both social and economic development at the same time. This one however results in a very complicated model with uncontrollable variables (means it is simply a mess).

I tend to go with economic development as the front-runner and deserving the highest priority.

Coming back to Pakistan, we are being inundated with examples from China, Bharat, and the Asian tigers. Unfortunately no single example will work for Pakistan. In fact we ought to have a very homegrown set of policies to address the current situation and then a separate set of policies to guide the next 5-10 and then 20-30 years.

Labor-heavy (that's my term) countries like Pakistan have to capitalize on their biggest resource which happens to be ........ "people". How do you use your people depends on two factors:

  1. Internal
  2. External

Today I'll touch the "internal factor". The single-most importanct internal factor is "Tax system".

You see, Tax system is to economy like traffic lights are to the traffic. You increase taxes and that is a red light. You decrease taxes and that's a green light.

If you see an economy that is totally messed up, it simply means that there are too many chowks (intersections) with no synchronization between the lights. The result is a deadlocked traffic on the roads and totally messed up businesses.

So in order to free up the road system, we have to remove many chowks and then synchronize the green lights for the remaining few.

Let me give you guys an example of ancient chowks and absence of synchronized and functioning traffic lights. 90% of Pakistan survives on agricultural economy. The tax system for this large group of people is 200 years or even older. The taxman for this system is called "Patwari" that happens to be a grade 5-7 officer. He is the King, God, and Allah all combined in one, for the rural economy. He is the land record holder and he is the tax-assessor and he is the tax collector. In the age of GPS navigation systems, he still uses sheets of latha (white cotton cloth) for drawing maps. His tax registers are even more archaic.

The result is a terrible set of taxes and tax collection like Abiana (water tax), Malia (income tax), ashtam-tax (stamp tax for property sale) etc. The government puts negative taxes (subsidies) to help farmers with the purchase of essentials items such as: fertilizers, farm-machinery, pesticides, and seeds etc. Another form of negative taxes is the "guaranteed purchase price" of essentials like wheat, sugarcane, Basmati, and cotton.

Such a system has practically killed the agri-growth and hampered industrialization of big farms. It has also generated the worst possible forms of corruption and tax cheating. Our food processing facilities are way limited while tones of wheat and rice gets destroyed in government run storage.

Our educated elite instead of enriching this agri-economy is hell bent on following leftie commies. The result is a antagonistic relationship (read clash) between land owners and the urban class.

Urban class is also suffering from the poor tax system based on a Hodge podge of socialist ideals and down right corrupt practices. The government controls the prices while businessmen openly use monopolistic methods of price gouging and hoarding.

Urban taxes are even in worse shape. A horrible combination of excise, sales, property taxes with almost negligible collection of income taxes is destroying the very core of the business.

Most of the taxes collected in this horrible way end up in the coffers of the federal government. States then line up at the federal treasury and beg for their share. This results in disrespect of states and a strong anti-federal feeling.

Mix this bad tax regulation and collection with a low sense of "stability" and the result is a never ending chaos that we usually blame it on the West in general and USA in particular.

Coming down to demo-crazy vs. army government, Pak-people prefer the later as it provides a greater sense of "stability" as compared to the politikos. Most of these politikos were downright communists like Bhatto and BB. The ones on the other side of spectrum were non-existent until Nawaz Sharif came along. Unfortunately Nawaz got entangled in financial mismanagement a la "Raiwind estate", "sugar sales to Bharat", and McDonalds.

So dear guppies fix the tax system, and use military for "stability". This is like fixing the road system with fewer but functioning and synchronized traffic lights. Then see how good things come to Pakistan.

I'll cover external factors in the next post. Ramzan takes the priority over other brain-teasing exercises.

Best wishes for Ramzan.

Minerva,
good thread :k:

Leaving apart the case of current Pakistan, and talking in general about the philosophy of the relationship between stability and economic growth i think both are very directly proportinate to each other. infact the general peace, stabilty etc through democracy or no democracy lead not only to financial growth but real ‘economic’ growth; the study of economics involves the standards of living, the mental state, health, general social behaviour, peace and so on, which affect the human capital of a nation, all of which come as a result of political;local, int’l, socail, religous, legal etc peace, harmony and stability. If a nation is able to achieve that with whatever resources it possesses and makes the best of what they have they will eventually put on course for smooth sailing in the right direction for economic and financial growth and stability. which just might come within a few years or may take decades, but come it will. provided there is one essential ingredient present in huge quantity; sense of belonging, responsibility and patriotism among the country men. relating it to national groeth it wont be wrong to include the virue under the scope of economic study as it is very directly responsible for any nation’s achievements.

and CM,
I endorse your views.