• 
• 
• 

The debate over which should be chosen first - economic development or democracy - is a perennial one. Should the autocratic models of Singapore, pre-democratic South Korea or China be lauded over, say India, which is supposedly the world's largest democracy?

Books have been written about the subject, with the latest one coming from American journalist Michael Schuman entitled: "The Miracle: The Epic Story of Asia's Quest for Wealth". The book, published by HarperBusiness, concludes that the sacrifice of democracy for economic growth in countries like South Korea was worth it and quite necessary.

The problem with "directly" linking democracy to economic growth is that often times the path towards national economic development is far too complex to be attributed to democracy or the lack of it alone.

Benign dictatorships, like in Singapore, or even China, which is certainly less benign, are the poster children for the model of economic development first and democracy later or even never.

But successful economic development depends on many other domestic and global factors as well - say, the state of the world economy, the work ethics of a particular society, how much some societies save, geo-political factors among others.

Back in 2004, academics Joseph T Siegle, Michael M Weinstein and Morton H Halperin, in an article in the Foreign Affairs journal on a similar topic, argued: "We reject a 'development first, democracy later' approach because experience shows that democracy often flourishes in poor countries."

The thing is, in some developing countries, people have the wrong perception that "democracy equals high levels of economic growth", and are often frustrated when the nascent state of democratic development in their societies do not deliver quick enough material results.

On the other hand, without the bare minimum level of development where problems of abject poverty, illiteracy and class if not caste system are alleviated - still persisting in some parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America - it would be difficult to imagine how democracy can take firm roots. This should not be used as an excuse to run countries in an autocratic fashion first, however.

The Philippines, for instance, has been used and abused by those advocating the development-before-democracy approach, as an example of how a rather democratic nation cannot ensure stable economic development.

So there exist examples of both poor democracies and well as poor dictatorships and vice versa. This means that democracy is not the most definitive factor in guaranteeing economic development. People would be wise to not directly equate democracy with economic growth.

However, the three writers were right in pointing out the many strengths of a democracy when it is not tied too directly to development.

"Poor democracies outperform authoritarian countries because their institutions enable power to be shared and because they encourage openness and adaptability … The development advantage of democracies also stems from the checks and balances that characterise self-governing political systems. Power is not monopolised by any one individual or branch of government, even though a national leader may claim a popular mandate. Although democracy is a more cumbersome process, it reduces the scope of rash, narrowly conceived or radical policies that can have disastrous economic consequences … Authoritarian regimes, by comparison, often turn political monopoly into economic monopoly … Such preferential treatment diminishes competition and innovation and therefore reduces economic efficiency."

And more: "Democracies are open: they spur the flow of information. Organisations in and out of government regularly report findings, educate the public and push political leaders to consider a full range of options, spreading good ideas from one sector to another. The free flow of ideas, every bit as much as the flow of goods, fosters efficient, customised and effective policies."

On the other hand, the suppression of information has proven to be costly at times, the writers said, referring to the Sars epidemic in China which was at first was kept a secret.

"Once the epidemic was acknowledged, distrust of the government led many Chinese in infected areas to violate the government's quarantine. This example also confirms a larger proposition: democracy does a better job in correcting errors."

So it boils down to transparency, accountability, de-monopolisation and de-perpetualisation of political power along with self-correcting mechanisms through citizens' rights to choose or impeach their representatives.

And such a system, whether it quickly leads to an economically prosperous nation or not, ought to be valued and cherished for offering a level of freedom and liberty.