The Hindu Business Line : Democracy and development: Contradiction in terms?

India has been the crucible to test the argument about democracy versus development. The two have proved largely compatible, despite underlying tensions. Peaceful and constructive social change can more readily be attained in a democracy because of the confidence the masses repose in the responsiveness of their governments. But that calls for leaders with credibility and a concern for the masses, in general, says T. C. A. Ramanujam.

The structural contradiction between the conservative requirements of stable democratic survival and the urgent transformative imperatives of late development makes the combination of democracy and development so difficult that it makes the establishment and continuity of democratic developmental states so rare.

— Prof: Adrian Leftwich, University of York.

Democracies could make reforms more feasible in several ways. Political checks and balances, a free press and open debate on the cost and benefits of Government policy could give the wider public a stake in reform. The need to produce good results in order to be re-elected could help rather than hinder economic change; it increases Governments' incentives to perform well and keeps predatory behaviour in check".

— UNDP, 1991

THE recent elections to the four State Assemblies have revived interest on the question of whether emphasis on development can mean success in elections. Political pandits have often expressed the view that authoritarianism is a useful, though regrettable, expedient for effective policy-making in the face of political instability.

Development policies take time to bear fruit, and this is inconsistent with the politics of short-term electoral cycles. Such instances as Brazil, Chile, Spain, and some of the East Asian countries were cited to show that economies managed with varying degrees of authoritarianism have made progress at different times whereas such established democracies as India or the Philippines were not able to make rapid progress.

Democratic governments cannot be carried on without political parties and this invariably results in government by an invisible oligarchy. They are prone to indecision, feebleness volatility, mediocrity and the ineptitude of the masses.

While democracies have established the principle and practice of at least some civil and political rights in their political systems, they have not, to the same extent, been able to define, agree on or institutionalise social and economic rights.

These rights include job security, universal and equal access to health, welfare systems and adequate pension. Democracies have difficulty taking steps to reduce structural inequalities in wealth.

The system of power which democratic politics represents seldom promotes the politics of radical change in the system of wealth, though this may be vital for furthering development momentum. Democratic policies are essentially politics of accommodation, compromise and collaboration with the centre.

Writing in the New Political Economy, Prof Adrian Leftwich points out how Third World democracies have seldom been effective in overcoming vested rural interests to achieve the restructuring of both rural wealth and power which land reform is designed to bring about.

Land reforms failed in the Philippines after the restoration of democracy in 1986, and proved impossible in Pakistan.

"Indian democracy, too, has had little success in pushing through national land reforms though States such as Kerala have been more successful.

At the level of more general redistributive policy and practice, there has hardly been any significant taxation of agricultural income and wealth."

The general attempt in India to organise development of what was in effect a "continental political economy, more empire than nation", was undertaken with one arm tied behind its back by its commitment to liberal democracy, producing limpingly slow development, as reflected in the Hindu rate of growth". (Ronald J. Herring: India's failed Developmental State).

The trade-off

Objective Western commentators have often pointed out how in developing countries there is a real trade-off between redistribution and survival of formal democracy.

It is now universally agreed that the-neo liberal structural reforms imposed by the IMF and the World Bank have generally had a regressive impact on income distribution.

They are seen as having strengthened large capitalists, weakening in the process both middle- and working-classes and their organisations, contributing to the survival of formal democracy by reducing the threat to the essential interests of property groups while at the same time severely undermining the development of participatory and social democracy.

Democracy is not the cause of many of these problems as value-reducing rent-seeking can operate without democracy, but the evidence certainly belies the argument that democracy in any simple way makes these problems less serious — for instance, through greater accountability.

Democracy as a goal may be valuable in itself but the construction of political settlement, which may allow more rapid economic development in developing countries, has nothing necessarily to do with either promoting democracy or overthrowing it.

The Schumpeterian view of democracy as competition between organised parties is more accurate.

The critical question is which group has the organisational, financial or other powers to dominate party politics.

It can, of course, be argued that development, understood as a project of empowerment, citizenship and balanced growth, requires the implementation of the emancipatory potential inherent within democracy.

Viewed from this angle, democracy and development constitute mutually enhancing utopian projects.

A genuine process of democratisation, observes Prof Jean Grugel, relies on the transformation of the state, since it is only through the state that the promises of equality, accountability, and citizenship inherent within democracy can be made real and delivered.

The Indian experience

India has been the crucible to test the arguments about democracy versus development. It is true that the recent elections were fought on the question of the capacity or the credibility of rival parties to provide power, water and roads.

But it is also true that the universal factor so vital for the success in elections was provided by the Prime Minister with his unique charisma and his capacity to inspire the electorate with developmental priorities like the Golden Quadrilateral. India's growth rate in the last half year has been phenomenal and India is the only country to have recorded such positive growth rate.

It has proved that democracy and development are potentially compatible; in fact, inescapably complementary, though there may be permanent tension between the two.

Democracy maybe a myth but its proponents can rightly contend that the democratic myth is better than any other — more likely to engender consistent attention to general welfare and restrain the abusive tendency of concentrated authority.

A democratic myth is not less worthy and not less conducive to public good than the myths of monarchy, aristocracy, proletarianism or totalitarianism.

The long time trend is in the direction of democracy. It is for the people to give content and quality to democracy by electing proper representatives.

That calls for education, from the grassroots level. Peaceful and constructive social change can be more readily attained in a democracy because of the confidence that the masses repose in the integrity and responsiveness of their governments. That calls for leaders with credibility and a concern for the masses, in general.

An informed populace is one of the best guarantees of a continuing democracy. It is threatened by the inertia of good people, by the selfishness of most people and by the evil designs of a few people.

Luckily, in the recent elections to the four State Assemblies, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted, shedding traditional inertia. It has proved that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Making safe whistle blowing

Democracy and development: Contradiction in terms?

Preparing for the polls

All interests are not equal

A ruling to warm cold storages

Why make routine of a `last resort'

Gold bars in a grocery bag

The muddle over TDS interest

Kim Jong-il is the one fat man in the whole country