Does Democracy Spur Economic Development - Assignment Example

Fоundаtiоn of Rеsеаrсh and Сrеаtivе Inquiry Еssаy Author Institution Fоundаtiоn of Rеsеаrсh and Сrеаtivе Inquiry Еssаy The definition of the term democracy has been a highly contested point particularly in this millennium. However, a significant volume of scholars have defined democracy as a political system of government where the government is for, by, and of the people. In other words, the masses elect accord power to individuals that form the government. Although democracy is a founding belief in the globe today, the discrepancies in definition have been key propellants for the evolution of democracies to complex and diverse dimensions. Consequently, what one nation may term as democracy may not necessarily apply in another. However, all democracies agree that the majority rule over the minority. Harris (2001) views democracy as a means that a state uses to accomplish economic growth and development. The debate on whether democracy is moral or otherwise thus rests on the effects of democracy to society. This paper seeks to unveil the reasons for and against democracy as a political vehicle in bid to establish a reliable position either for or against democracy. Exponents of democracy denote it as the social, economic, and political manifestation of masses aspirations to frame and manage their cognitive lives based on rationality (Fitzpatrick, 2007). Democracy and rationality are intricately interwoven. This political system thus enables the majority of a country or state to pursue what is true to them and reject what they perceive as an illusion. Other political vehicles such as anarchy, monarchy, and aristocracy detach the masses from the power to deciding and pursuing rational aims. These forms of government accord much respect to the minority, the ruling class, as opposed to democracy which accords much respect to the majority. A good example of this phenomenon is the in the context of a capitalistic society. Capitalism pursues to attain and sustain the interests of the few owners of the factors of production the commonly termed as the proletariats while disregarding the welfare of the majority, the working class, commonly referred to as the bourgeoisie. Does democracy spur economic development? Democracy enables the initiation and sustenance of economic growth and development (Vander, 2011). The virtues of democracy lay an important role in integrating and ensuring smooth interaction of different sources of economic growth towards attainment of economic growth objectives. These virtues entail; equality in income distribution, accountability, resect for all, justice and fairness, the rule of law, transparency, and equality in use of public facilities. The correlation between democracy and economic growth has been evidenced by the observation that democratic regimes are rare in least developed countries (LDCs) and frequent in developed countries. Exponents of the modernization theory further reckon that democracies that emerge in developed countries are more likely to stabilize as opposed to their counterparts in LDCs (Vander, 2011). Is there a correlation between a political regime and the creation of a collaborative community? If so does democracy yield create a communistic society? Any political regime is supposed to have an intimate relationship between the ruling class and the ruled in order to ensure high performance. However the products of a political vehicle determine how close the ruled can come to those in power. Although other political regimes can have communistic citizenry, for instance, an aristocratic government can have collaborative community on the basis of familial ties, democratic form of government is far much effective in creation of communistic societies. This assertion draws it support from the following: democracy facilitates representativeness through fair election of leaders, leaders are accountable to eligible electors, government policies are open to criticism from the citizens, and transparency of government operations cultivate self- belonging (Vander, 2011). Since all people treasure freedom, do all systems of government act in a way to foster it? Liberty is a founding belief of the modern societies. As such, all systems of government ought to ensure that their citizens enjoy absolute freedom. Unfortunately, all other systems of government apart from democratic systems thrive under dictatorship thus demeaning freedom of expression among others the very people they are expected to protect. On the hand, democracy ensures that all citizens enjoy freedom of choice, expression, and worship among others (Vander, 2011). The ends of democracy seem to quite extensively support the means, the political regime, are there any downsides of democracy? To begin with, Harris (2001) argues that democracy is dictatorship in disguise. He points out that the majority use voting as a tool to destroy the minority. The fact that most individuals in a society appreciate a policy does not necessarily mean that the policy will automatically yield good for all. For instance, in a referendum a European country can reinforce discrimination of colored citizens. Although the majority may win, discrimination remains immoral and inhuman. In other words, democracy defines justice defines through the lenses of numerical equality and not merit. It measures fairness and justice in society through quantity and not quality. This makes democracy a social evil (Harris, 2001). Is democratic transparency for the wellbeing of a state or it’s the cause of a state’s demise? Democratic transparency augurs well especially for citizens who have ‘nothing’ to lose. Certain levels of secrecy, the opposite of transparency, are pertinent for strong and dependable military defense and working foreign relations. When a state moves forward to disclose a critical foreign policy on the basis of fulfilling either a right, debate, or justification, the state risks sharing information with its enemies. This revelation thus means putting the lives and the future of the state at risk. It is in this illumination that transparency remains salient to democracies today. Are democratic regimes managed by the competent or the incompetent? Democracy denotes that all citizens in a country have equal rights and thus any one of them can be elected into leadership positions. This position of democracy has thus enabled the illiterate but rich citizens win leadership positions. To further maintain their positions in office, these individuals acquire considerable amounts of shares in key industries such as the media. These ownerships cripple the transparency of information and thus deny laymen the right to information. Are most representative democracies pure democracies or elected dictatorships? Since the representatives elected to serve a term of mostly four to five years, they can opt to formulate and as policies that deter the masses from getting out of office. In other words, Pelinka (1999) argues that the representatives can formulate policies towards accomplishment of their personal gains while manipulating the masses. To make it more painful, not all voters are aware of what happen in political circles and most are bribed to vote and thus vote not for their own good but the good of the few elites in society. Prochaska (2012) further argues that since most voters are not knowledgeable about state issues, particularly economic issues, voters vote on the basis of charisma of representatives and other ordinary physical appearances. This thus means that voters are irrational. Can the framework of operation defined by a democratic political regime work for a big state with quite a considerable population? Democracy outlines that the integration of a policy into the constitution and the deployment of the same in real life requires a referendum and thus slowing down government operations (Sproule, 1997). In the case of large population size, referendums are not only time unconscious but also financially expensive. This incapacitation locks democracy from effectively operate in small states as opposed to other forms of political regimes (Taylor, 1998). Do democracies create controlled societies or societies without modulation? Democracy accords individuals the freedom to do or to say as they will lead to the lack of discipline. According to Lippmann et. al. (1982), this liberty of action and expression results to creation of mediocre societies. On the other hand, other political regimes exact control over what people do and say and thus ensures disciplined societies. Is democracy a government of all the people or of the rich? As opposed to the very definition of democracy, majority of todays’ democratic voting process are engineered by money. The rich buy votes into office. As a result, democracy becomes a government of the few rich at the expense of the majority poor. It is in this breadth that Vander (2011) argues that democracy is the modern form of capitalism. Democracy thus creates a classed society, the rich and the poor. This widens the inequality gap since the rich end up owning the factors of production while the electorates become inputs of production. This argument further responds to the assertion that democracy enables economic growth. The correlation of the evolution of democracy and economic growth in developing countries should not be interpreted as causation (Yi, 1997). Instead, how the actors in a democratic regime pave way for growth should either recommend or discard democracy. The evolution in democracy over the years has been as a result of the products of receding forms of democracy (Vander, 2011). The evolutions have thus been spurred by the inefficiencies in past forms of democracies. Such inefficiencies have been reflected by a myriad of occurrences: poor voter turn-outs, the collapse of democracies resulting from social, economic, and political conflicts, dictatorship in democracy, creation of undisciplined societies, manipulation of the masses, and threat to state security among others. However, democracy has not been shot of upsides in society. Among the merits of democracies are: facilitation of citizens to drive their lives based on reason, facilitation of economic growth and development, and promotion of freedom, and creation of communistic societies. To determine whether democracy is moral or immoral, advantageous or disadvantageous, one needs to measure the ends or rather the aftermaths of democracy. References Fitzpatrick, A. (2007). Democracy. Mankato, MN: Creative Education. Harris, N. (2001). Democracy. Austin [u.a.: Raintree Steck-Vaughn. Lippmann, W., Rossiter, C., & Lare, J. (1982). The essential Lippmann: A political philosophy for liberal democracy. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press. Pelinka, A. (1999). Politics of the lesser evil: Leadership, democracy & Jaruzelski's Poland. New Brunswick [u.a.: Transaction Publ. Prochaska, F. K. (2012). Eminent Victorians on American democracy: The view from Albion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sproule, J. M. (1997). Propaganda and democracy: The American experience of media and mass persuasion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, J. (1998). An inquiry into the principles and policy of the government of the United States. Union, N.J: Lawbook Exchange. Vander, H. S. (2011). Democracy. Edina, MN: ABDO Pub. Co. Yi F. (1997). Democracy, Political Stability and Economic Growth. British Journal of Political Science, 27(3), 391-418. Read More