democracy and development

Most of rich countries in the world are democracies and most of the poorest are not, or have not been for most of their histories. Recently however, this reality seems to be changing. The last quarter-century has seen a wave of democratization, the most recent examples being the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011. Many of these new democracies have adopted new constitutions, entrenched bills of rights and made provisions for constitutional judicial review. The exact relationship between political regimes and development is highly contested, both theoretically and empirically. It is clear that there is a correlation between democracy and development but not necessarily causation, but quite the opposite. In order to critically examine the relationship between development and democracy this essay will firstly specify what is meant by democracy and then define the concept of development. Finally, will argue that democracy is often an essential prerequisite to development at least in its early stages but most importantly, the success of a development program relies not on the regime type but on the character of the states and its association with politics.

The term democracy does not have a unanimous definition; however it could be understood in a more substantive manner as a political regime that protects the freedom of individuals and express the will of the majority through free and fair elections, protection of minority rights and respect for basic human rights. Notwithstanding this general conception of democracy, there is no consensus on precisely how to define or measure democracy. Scholars approach democracy in various ways. An example of a much used minimalist definition is that of Joseph Schumpeter’s. He describes t...

... middle of paper ...

...lopment. In addition, such transformation have depended less on regime type than on the character and capacity of the state, whether democratic or not. In, short it has been the politics and the state rather than the democracy that explains the differences between successful and unsuccessful development records. Hence, it is not necessarily a democratic state, though it could be highly desirable if it could also be that, but a developmental state. This implies that a state should have political and bureaucratic elite with genuine developmental determination and autonomous capacity to define, purse and implement development goals. Hence, it is not simply a managerial question, as the World Bank’s literature asserts, but a political one. Without a development state, democratic or not, no contemporary developing society is likely to achieve developmental breakthrough.