A good governance structure is probably the most significant element in a country's development and growth. This assertion could not be more accurate, as demonstrated by the bulk of the third-least world's developed countries. In every nation, the government is faced with a range of obligations for its people. These duties include maintaining stability, schooling, and the supply of basic necessities, as well as supervising the lawful conduct of trade and other economic activities (Shabbir & Maguire 15). The efficiency with which it carries out this responsibility all while ensuring equity and fairness among its citizens will determine whether the country shall exhibit positive economic growth and development or whether it shall falter and plunge into even more disarray. This essay features an analysis between illiberal and liberal democracies in addition to authoritarianism in a bid to establish which system of governance would be most suitable to achieve economic growth among low income countries.
The first form of government shall be authoritarianism. This system of governance may also be referred to as an autocracy. It involves a state of governance where an individual or a party holds absolute power and control over the rest of the populous. This system of governance is present in nations such as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. The rest are monarchies in the middles east and feature little transition of power and when it does occur, it passes on to individuals not chosen by the majority. However, the one thing about these countries that sticks out is the fact that they are all in very dire economic states. A study by the United States Institute of Peace notes that “Corruption tends to be more prevalent in autocratic systems…corruption does exist in democracies, but it is fundamentally different from the massive looting by autocrats in dictatorships.” (“Governance, corruption, and conflict”10). This is because, unlike democracies which ensure the ruling class obtains its power from winning legitimate election, the authoritarian system of governance derives its support from a few members of the ruling class (Khan 9).
History has numerous cases in which the dictatorship embezzles a country’s resources due to the inexistence of the need to provide any sort of accountability. For instance, Mohamed Suharto is estimated to have embezzled between $15 billion to $35 billion in his tenure as president of Indonesia from 1967 to 1998. Similarly, Mobutu Sésé Seko is estimated to have embezzled about $5 billion from Congo’s – present day Democratic Republic of Congo – treasury. The scenes are not any different in present day Zimbabwe where President Robert Mugabe has overseen the dilapidation of his country which has experienced unprecedented levels of inflation in the recent past (“Governance, corruption, and conflict” 10). Additionally, authoritarianism threatens the existence of positive stability by infringing on the rights of private citizens. Violations of the rights of private citizens who may oppose the government on various matters creates an unstable atmosphere that repels investors who are crucial to development in a low income country (Grindle 537). The most crucial factor missing in an authoritarian system of governance is an elaborate “checks and balances” mechanism in place to ensure accountability among the leaders (Shabbir & Maguire 17). This missing link creates room for a lot of uncontrollable actions which are detrimental to the progress of a country’s economy. Hence, I do not believe that an authoritarian system of government would suit a low income country.
An illiberal democracy is an interesting system of governance. Interesting because, it offers the illusion of a full democracy yet lacks some of its important elements. This system of government is also referred to as a partial democracy or hybrid regime. This is because despite the fact that elections take place, it lacks transparency and citizens are kept uninformed of the true state of matters in the government due to the absence of civil liberties. The most suitable examples for this system of governance would be Singapore, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Hungary. Countries with illiberal systems of government exhibit higher levels of progress especially when compared to countries under authoritarian rule. Studies show that when compared side by side, illiberal countries have significantly more developmental strides in sectors such as education, health, gender equality and certain basic freedoms (Grindle 531). Countries such as Singapore are a testament to this system. As one of the fastest rising economies in Asia, the system is an exhibit of what could be achieved when this system is properly implemented. Despite the few exception made such as the presence of elections, these nations a sense of transparency that would enable the involvement of the citizens.
However, this system has faults of its own. The lack of transparency cuts off a vast majority of the citizens. This means that a majority of the citizens are left out of policy making and matters of governance. This could prove to be a cause of many economic problems in a country. When citizens are left out of the policy making, the government may fail to tackle the real issues affecting countries normal citizens. There could be a mismatch of ideas being implemented and what is really required. Such a discrepancy can be witnessed in Russia where the economy is experiencing difficulties yet the government seems to be at a loss of what to do. This could be very detrimental in a less developed country since these are more in need of government mandated reforms. Hence an illiberal system of governance would also not be suitable for a low income country.
A liberal democracy system of governance refers to one in which the dominant political ideology supports and upholds the principle of classical liberalism characterized by free, fair and competitive elections. It is also referred to as western democracy. It may take the form of a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary system, or a presidential system. Each of these may be further tweaked depending on specific countries. Liberal democracies are governed by the emphasis on the rule of law. There are limits within a liberal democracy but these limits are constitutional and apply to everyone with certain exceptions such as the head of state – such as the queen, king or president if allowed by the constitution. Additionally, the citizens are kept informed of the decisions of the government and involved in policy making. However, it is very rare to find a fully liberal democratic government. The constitutional requirement and ‘maturity’ to have such a system of may prove to be complicated for the vast majority of countries especially for most low income whose democracies are relatively young and also cannot sustain the economic and budgetary requirements of such an system of governance.
For this reason, most self-proclaimed liberal democracies are illiberal democracies masquerading as the former. The lack of enlightenment; knowledge of their rights and freed coupled with low economic abilities make them vulnerable to invasive regimes (Khan 11). Liberal democracies are established to prevent the rise of such scenarios. They are to be the system of governance of choice in a progressive society where citizens enjoy the benefits of liberty and freedom. These rights encourage self-sufficiency, industry, innovation, trade, development and arts and culture (Rodrik 53). All of which are important contributors to thriving economy. Liberal democracies also encourage partnerships with neighbouring countries and support trade within regional communities. This has the benefit of increasing markets for the local produce. Additionally, liberal democracies also have the added benefit of creating suitable conditions that attract external investors (Shabbir and Maguire 19). These investors are crucial to the development of a developing country due the amount of revenue a government stands to make in taxes and jobs creation for a significant part of the population.
Liberal democracies demand a lot in terms of educated and enlightened of the masses, and budgetary concerns. If the challenges of political backwardness were to be overcome, this would be the best form of government for low income countries (Rodrik 54). This is because; this is the system of governance that involves the rest of the population in policy making. This involvement is crucial to a developing economy. Reforms and policies can be formed to benefit the whole population since the entire population is involved. Hence, I believe that for low income countries, liberal democracy or some suitable variation of it would be the most suitable system of governance.
Conclusion
It is therefore my conclusion that for developing countries, the most suitable for of governance would be a liberal democratic form of government. This is because unlike authoritarianism which leaves great room for misappropriation, embezzlement and corruption or illiberal democracy that locks out a majority of the populous, liberal democracy involves a majority in policy making. This important as it creates the chance to proactively forge the way forward for the country in a manner that is most suitable to the needs of the citizens.
Works cited.
Cheema, G. Shabbir, and Linda Maguire. Democracy, governance and development: A conceptual framework. United Nations public administration network (UNPAN), (2002).
Grindle, Merilee S. "Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries." Governance 17.4 (2004): 525-548.
“Governance, corruption, and conflict.” United States Institute of Peace. (2010): 10-12.
Khan, Mushtaq. "Governance and anti-corruption reforms in developing countries: Policies, evidence and ways forward." United Nations. (2006).
Rodrik, Dani. "Is Liberal Democracy Feasible in Developing Countries?" Studies in Comparative International Development 51.1 (2016): 50-59.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email