Configuring economic development with democratisation

A key question which has bedevilled political scientists for decades has been the exact relationship of economic development and democracy. As the question is of great significance for a fledgling democracy like Pakistan an answer needs to be searched in the light of teachings of ancient sages as well as the latest research. According to Aristotle, democracy cannot function in a society that has a large proportion of poverty-ridden members.

The Modernisation Theory contends that industrialisation leads to growing levels of wealth which results in the formation of a strong middle class within society. The expanding middle class members mostly make cities their abodes where they have access to education, information and media that enables people to participate in political activities and making demands on the government. This exposure transforms the thought process of people and they start considering themselves as citizens rather than subjects of the state having every right to raise demands on the government and determine its nature and complexion.

The ever-increasing participation of people results in the flourishing of a democratic culture in society. Noticeably, a strong middle class is the result of economic development and the role of middle class is instrumental in a democracy. That is why American political scientist Barrington Moore in 1966 concluded, “no bourgeois, no democracy.” In Pakistan this connection was quite evident when extensive and rapid economic development in the era of General Ayub Khan created a sizable, if not strong, middle class which in turn resulted in participation of increasing number of masses in the political processes even forcing Gen Ayub to step down and give rise to a big political party namely the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in 1967.

While the theory of modernisation contended a close interrelationship between economic development and democratisation research in the last several decades has explored that the connection may not be directly proportional or correlated. For instance, Samuel Huntington noted as earlier as 1968 that economic development and political modernisation or democratisation were not correlated but rather were distinct processes. Moreover, economic development and the swift multidimensional social changes accompanying it could equally result in political deterioration of societies.



Huntington specifically found if socioeconomic transformation lead to mass-level social mobilisation that overshadows or outpaces the process of political institutionalisation, then decay will be certain. Huntington argued that the consequences of political decay irrespective of economic development are such that that stable authoritarian regimes are considered preferable to fledgling democratic order. As Huntington has been a quite influential scholar the US’s policy regarding Pakistan in the decades of 1980s and 2000s and authoritarian Arab regimes continuously was seemingly influenced by this view.

By reversing the argument of Huntington, we can explain the post-General Zia democratic political system in Pakistan. In the post-1988 period, which commenced the so-called democratic era in Pakistan’s history, the continual process of democratisation could not result in any worthwhile economic development. However, the reasons to me were not the failure of the democratic system but the quality of democracy which was practised in the country and the inconsistencies of the democratic values with our traditional, ultraconservative social structure. Instead of democracy could overcome the traditional values and institutions of our social structure, democratic institutions themselves got overwhelmed by the values of the traditional social structure particularly nepotism, lack of meritocracy and so on.

In order to explain the relationship between economic development and democratisation, the Dependency Theory argued that economic development might impede the process of social modernisation and the evolution of a democratic culture. The Dependency Theory took forward the debate regarding the interrelationship between the two concepts by discovering that developing countries would never experience stable economic growth because they were trapped in a whirlpool of dependence on wealthier states.

Researchers also tried to answer the question as to why many countries despite their wealth could not establish a sustainable democratic system. They discovered that countries with large deposits of natural resources raise most of the state revenues from these resources and consequently have been unable to attain stable economic growth and evolve a democratic culture and political system. This phenomenon has been referred to as a natural resource curse. In order to continuously exploit the natural resources ruling regimes develop centralised state structure with little political mobility and participation for the general masses stunting the growth of a strong democracy. This is partly true for Pakistan also as the country has sizable natural resources but due to a centralised state structure, a stable economic system and a strong democracy cannot be put in place.

The Survival Theory, on the other hand, argues that democracies emerge irrespective of whether a country is economically developed or not. However, democracies sustained when the level of national wealth is high. Perhaps Pakistan could also not have a sustained democracy because we could not have had increased significant levels of GNP.

Thus economic and political development have important linkages as both processes are badly needed by our country. Our leadership, policymakers and the masses need to understand them.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 11^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.