Saturday, May 31, 2008

inter-disciplinary studies: social studies - political systems

Title: Why Democracy is Good for Development
Author: By Anita Inder Singh
US Chronicle Online Edition (Issue: Bringing the UN forward)

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue3/0306p29.htm


In this article, the writer wants to tell people that democracy is essential for development. He is in favour of democracy, but he thinks authoritarianism does not work. He cited examples of authoritarian societies which had fallen – Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. He also showed that authoritarian states like British India, China and Zaire experience man-made famines while democratic states do not. His argument is that democracy implies peace and consensus, and because there is consensus, people can choose their own rulers and their way of life. Thus the country will be ruled in a proper way.

I agree that democracy is a good political system. Democracy promotes fairness and equality, so everyone has a chance to choose what he wants and has the freedom to raise his viewpoint. Democracy involves the community, and participation is the key role of the citizens. As more citizens participate in politics, they become more well-informed about the government. A more transparent government will make citizens more satisfied with the way they are ruled. Power lies in the people, so they can elect who they deem is best for the country. I think a country’s policies and rules should be based on what the citizens agree to. If a dictator makes all the policies with disagreement among the people, the country cannot run smoothly because the people do not want to abide to the policy and rules. As what the writer said, the stability of democracies does not depend on force, but on the consensus of the governed. Democracy implies concern about the means through which development takes place. Thus a democratic government will ensure that there is minimal poverty as the country develops.

However, if citizens only support policies to suit their own interests and the government is affected by these self-interest groups, then democracy will not work. The government’s policies will be limited to the people’s agenda. For example, democratic Indonesia believes too much in people’s interest, so much so that they try to appease the people by subsidizing priced oil. Hence the government has to channel most of the country’s GDP into these subsidies. This in turn will affect government spending on development in other aspects of the country, thus leading to economic loss.

Although I agree that democracies are usually better, some authoritarian countries are still very successful. Monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Kuwait are all rich countries. They have well managed resources and have one of the highest GDP in the world. This is because the monarchy has better control and autonomy over their resources, so there is no exploitation or mismanagement of resources if it is left to the hands of the citizens.

In his article, the writer raised examples of successful democracies and unsuccessful autocracies only. He did not show that democracies could fail and autocracies could also be successful. Indeed I think that most democracies are successful and most autocracies are unsuccessful, but if an autocratic government controls its country’s resources properly, its economy will still be prosperous.