Does Democracy Prerequisite for Development?

Introduction
Western countries which are commonly developed country for many decades practicing democracy in their government. Even though, the term of democracy itself has multi-facets of interpretation, however influencing expert such as Huntington, simplify it (in Bartley, et. al., 1993, p. 28) to become “a means of constituting authority in which the ruled choose the ruler”. Substantive democracy constitutes the adult populations which are eligible to vote their representatives in fair, hones and periodic elections as the real ruled. For the purpose of this essay, democracy will be defined as substantive democracy in which going to election only one indicator to measure the essential implementation of democracy.
Furthermore, many factors basically as nature of democracy such as political freedom, freedom of expression and free press. These principles are reflected in all citizens’ right that are being equal before the law and having equal access to power and liberties which are commonly protected by a state constitution. However, many countries in Asia substantively are not democratic country but could be identified through their advanced achievement in development. This essay will argue that democracy is not a precondition for, but necessarily needed by the mature developed country.

The long forming-process of democracy
Research on history indicates that democratic system has long root on Western culture, originally from Greek city-states civilization in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC and sequencing-metamorphose become modern in the last 350 years in western history. Huntington (in Bartley, et. al., 1993, p. 29) argued that modern democracy cannot be separated from the western culture and economic development and transmitted to the rest of the world through three waves of democratization process.
The first wave of democratization swept the old-European countries in the 17th century, replacing aristocracy, oligarchy and despotic systems. The France revolution is the most bloodies one and the best example. The second wave happened after World War II, in which many countries become more democratic even with variation in implementation. If by 1942 there are twelve democratic countries in the world, then as the victors of the World War II, Western Allies imposed democratic system to the West Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan and South Korea with various result.
Parallel with decolonization process which are many countries got their sovereignty and administratively independence the new nations politically have various systems using the victors of the war as a model and new trustees of development. In this process, the new super-powers try to dominate world’s political scene. Following ideological rivalry between Western-Eastern political-block in the Cold War, implicated serious political turmoil in the third world. However, the third wave of democratization as Huntington explained unstoppable happened start from 1970’s when Latin America, Sovyet Union and Eastern Europe embrace to more democratic system (Siaroff, 2005, p. 239). This process indicated by event such as the fall of Berlin Wall and affecting disintegration of nation states such as the former Sovyet Union and Yugoslavia. Siaroff (2005, P.124) stated recently (2004) there are 49 from 100 ex-colonies countries in the world practicing procedural democracy.
Thus, democracy as political ideology cannot be stopped by any power of the world, especially when the United States as the oldest democratic political system (Huntington in Bartley, et. al., 1993, p. 33) exporting it through many means of hard and soft power. Moreover, the economic crisis in the end of 1990’s was triggered democratization in many Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Indonesia for instance becomes the third largest democratic country in the world after India and the USA. Structured political reform as political solution of crisis, boosting improvement of electoral system, more independence of judiciary, separation of power, protection on human right, the growing of civil society, free media, and better civil-military relation (Johannen et.al., 2000, p. 7).
Numerous studies have been conducted concluded that democracy is not without critique, for instance democracy cannot bring structural adjustment like land reform (Siaroff, 2005). Furthermore, democracy tends to un-decisive for many issues because of the long process needed. International new trusteeship such as World Bank and IMF that giving conditionality (to liberalize the economy and politics) for the given loan was seen as the offence for national sovereignty (Momani, 2004 p. 880), even though these other conditionality (good governance, transparency and accountability) logically is better for the nature of development.
The idea of economic development
As an impact of industrialization in Europe, the term of growth and progress was become popular amongst economist. Cowen and Shenton (1995, p. 29) stated that modern idea of development is Eurocentric, since it is related to the effort to set up order because of rapid urbanization, poverty and unemployment as a direct effect of industrialization. This intentional development can be seen as the respond to the negative impact of spontaneous development. Thus, concept of economic development refers to indicators such as higher GDP, lower poverty rate, longer life expectancy, lower unemployment and higher literacy rate and finally higher Human Development Index.
Furthermore, in Cowen and Shenton (1996, p. 5) sentence, ‘development is the means whereby the goal of universal human improvement can be attained’. In more political perspective, they (1995, p. 28) establish the importance of trusteeship doctrine, even though it is broadly condemned by the third world as Eurocentric and assumed to be the span of imperial in post-colonial history. However, many thinkers stated that in nature there are many kind of supporting culture or religion which compatible and not compatible with the idea of development.
World War II as observed by Arndt (1984) has an important footstep for understanding about the advanced idea of economic development. In the light of this, after many countries devastated by the war, development become a major concern of western government, economist and public opinion and become drivers of economic though and development. Moreover, as the victors of the war, western countries try to spread their idea about better post-war world, particularly in the third world using their government capability and economic resources.
For many third world countries in postcolonial era, the term development tend to be exogenous factor that the developed countries in any degree seen as the model to be replicated. Japan and Korea for a long period protect their infant car industry for instance (Chang, 2009 in Development Policy Review) to secure its position on global market competition. In postindustrial economy in the recent years as implication of the success of knowledge and technology transformation, many emerging countries drive their economic development through innovation and knowledge. The countries such as India developed business cluster like Bangalore to build the software industry. A central question now is then in what degree correlation between democracy and development.
Relation between democracy and development
Fast Asian economic advancement before the crisis in the late 1990’s with economic growth almost reach double digit yearly was convincing many experts about thesis East Asian miracle. However, even though Krugmann (1994) stated that this miracle mostly based on the using of more input rather than innovation, the advancement of economic development in sequence period confirming about Asian Dragons and China is the best given example.
Even though economically in transition turns to be a capitalist country, until recent day China only has one political party to manage many interests in the country with more than 1.3 billion populations (East Asia Forum Quarterly, January-March 2010). Managed by authoritarian political regime (Hudson, 1997), China was demonstrating as the largest international trader in 2009 with lower unemployment rate and higher HDI than in the past. This fact raises the thesis that economic development can be happened in authoritarian country based on the trusteeship concept.
In line with this condition, Singapore, the city state only had one-party (PAP) domination since its independence, almost similar with Japan (LDP) and Taiwan (KMT). This kind of Asian semi-authoritarian countries is not democratic in essence, but developmental states. However, Moore (in CSIS, 1992, p. 66) point out that Singapore adopted western democracy without practicing the essence of democracy such as freedom of speech and freedom of press only to attract investor and getting technology from Western countries.
Furthermore, under undemocratic regime, Singapore for years demonstrates transparency and accountability (responsible) of its government and effectively achieving high economic development. Public hearing and participation commonly held on policy-making process. Moreover, Singapore for years nominated by Transparency International (by Corruption Perception Index) as a less corrupt country in the world that similar level with Scandinavian countries, while in the same time with the confidentiality banking regime absorbing corrupted money from corrupt country such as Indonesia.
On the other side of the island state, from 1968 until 1998 Indonesia’s rapid economic growth driving by authoritarian centralistic regime rather than a democratic one (Wan, 2008 p.39). Corruption, collusion and nepotism are the popular public term to identify the crony capitalism happened in Indonesia during Soeharto era. Economic crises in Asia situated Indonesia politically in the worst condition. However, MacIntyre (in Campos 2001, p. 25) stated that the primary learning from the Asian economic crisis of 1997 to 1998 is collapsing the whole economic building because of lack of transparency, crony capitalism and corruption.
In the case of Indonesia after crisis, liberal democracy and decentralization as a result of political reform does not meant implicating directly to the decreasing of corruption because of high cost of direct election system (Andrianto, 2010, p. 148). However, the advance consolidation of democracy in recent days boosting citizens using many means of new social networking such as Facebook, Youtube, Tweeter (Democracy 3.0) to critique the government and its economic development policy.
Furthermore, in term of Latin America democratization on politic and economy relatively shift the governments from military rule to civilian rule (Wise and Riordan, 2003, pp. 1-2) preventing them to become banana republic because of unaccountable government that affecting trapped in indebtedness. In addition, many countries that practicing authoritarian system such as North Korea, Vietnam and Military Junta in Burma are in fact under-developed country with stagnancy or up and down economic development.
In the light of this, China had experienced about worst famine in recorded history in the late 1950’s, so do the North Korea. However, India in Sen’s view (in Banik, 2007, p. 16) can avoid famine even though has the second largest population in the world because practicing democracy. Centralistic planning in the authoritarian country such as North Korea and China in the past time and absence of public participation on policy-making process was caused the disaster.
On other part of the world, there is relatively no development in many Arab countries. Sultanistic regimes that are tend to be unaccountable, not transparent and no civil participation in policy-making process (Siaroff, 2005, p. 214) affecting poor economic and political performance. Unsurprisingly, Arab countries that are commonly economically supported by oil (natural resources) boom not developmental par se because of misallocation of resources such as for military equipment and the increased of corruption by the regime. The sudden influx of oil revenues tends to create rentier states (Pegg, 2005, p. 4), that biggest percentage of the government revenues come from external sources.
Michael Ross (2004 in Pegg, 2005, p. 5) stated that lucrative oil boom also has anti-democratic effect and contribute to high corruption rate, opposite with labor-intensive renewable resources. On another word, natural resources impede democracy such as in Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia. The different condition happened on other primary commodities which generate limited or no rents, produce less export income for the state’s revenue and employ higher percentage of the labor force.
However, Huntington stated (1991, p. 67) that “Rapid economic growth creates rapidly the economic base for democracy, …. and creates stresses and strains in the social fabric that stimulate political mobilization and demands for political participation”. The recent riot because of political dispute in Thailand confirms the need of stable political system through democratization. Even though democracy basically is not a guarantee for stability of the government, however in many Western countries that practicing democracy tends to be more stable and peaceful as a guarantee for continuation of their development.
Conclusion
The conclusion that can be drawn is development can be happened in a democratic, authoritarian or semi-authoritarian country. Democracy is not necessarily related to development however it is needed by developed country to reach economic and political stability. The more developed country, the more need for democracy as a means of social and political participation. In the matured democratic countries, the changing of regime will peacefully happened as precondition of continuing advanced development.
References
Andrianto, Nico, & Johansyah, Ludi Prima 2010, Korupsi di daerah; modus operandi dan peta jalan pencegahannya, (Corruption in decentralization era; modus operandi and preventing roadmap), Surabaya, Putra Media Nusantara Publisher.
Arndt, HW 1987, Economic development: the history on an idea, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Banik, Dan 2007, Starvation and India’s democracy, New York.
Bartley, Robert, et. al., 1993, Democracy and Capitalism, Singapore.
Campos, J. Edgardo, 2001, Corruption: The boom and bust of East Asia, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Philippines.
Cowen, M & Shenton R 1995, ‘The invention of development’, in Jonathan C (ed.), Power of Development, Routledge, London and New York.
________, 1996, Doctrines of development, Routledge, London and New York.
CSIS, 1992, Economic development and democratization in the Asia-Pasific region, Washington DC.
Development Policy Review, 2009, ‘DPR Debate, Should Industrial Policy in Developing Countries Conform to Comparative Advantage or Defy it? A Debate Between Justin Lin and Ha-Joon Chang’, POGO 8072 Reading Brick, ANU, Australia.
East Asia Forum Quarterly, January-March 2010, “One Party, two coalitions in China’s politics”, ANU E-press, Australia.
Hudson, Christopher 1997, The China Handbook, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, Chicago, London.
Huntington, 1991, The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.
Johanen, Uwe, et. al., 2000, The political dimensions of the Asian crisis, Select Books in association with Friederich Naumann Foundation, Singapore.
Krugmann, P., 1994, ‘The Myth of Asia’s Miracle’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.73, USA.
Momani, Bessma, 2004, American politicization of the International Monetery Fund, Review of International Political Economy, UK.
Pegg, Scott, 2005, ‘Can Policy Intervention Beat The Resource Curse? Evidence from the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline Project’, African Affairs, Oxford University Press, UK.
Siaroff, Alan, 2005, Comparing political regimes: a thematic introduction to comparative politics, Broadview Press, Ontario.
The Canberra Times, ‘How did Thailand come to this?’, Thursday, May 20, 2010.
Wan, Ming 2008, The political economy of East Asia: striving for wealth and power, CQ Press, Washington DC.
Wise, Carol and Riordan Roett 2003, Post-stabilization politics in Latin America: competition, transition, collapse, Washington DC.