Economic growth or development has been a major focus of policymakers of all countries in the world. However, for a number of reasons, some countries have made tremendous economic growth while others still lag behind in regards to economic development. The others are those under middle-income and low-income bracket. Therefore, to steer economic development, three models of governance have been proposed. These are; liberal democracy, an illiberal democracy, and authoritarian rule. It remains a puzzle as to which system works best for economic growth, a factor that has been enhanced by positive attributes that each system seem to have. This report intends to focus on which of the three systems works the best for economic development in low-income countries. Although liberal democracy and authoritarian rule have been touted as the best to steer economic growth in low-income countries, they both have flaws that make them not suitable or rather ideal for a third world case, which necessitates for a balance to be struck between the two systems. Therefore, this report is of the view and will demonstrate why illiberal democracies are the best for low-income countries to steer economic development.
Description of the three political Systems
Liberal democracy
This form of governance is widely practiced in western countries, especially, Great Britain and the United States of America. For this reason, it is often called western democracy. The main feature of this system is periodic elections among various political parties, free and fair elections, and distribution or rather separation of power between different organs of government (ODI, 2007, p.25). Also, the rule of law is given much attention especially in the protection of civil liberties, human rights, and political freedoms for all people within its jurisdiction. Moreover, this system embraces universal suffrage, thus, giving every adult citizen an opportunity to vote irrespective of sex, property ownership or race (Leftwich, 2002, pp.269-281). Many of the western countries that embraced this system are way much ahead of others regarding development. However, other scholars argue that much of the wealth ought not to be attributed to the system but rather, was as a result of the industrial revolution. The best example that shows the inability of this system is in low-income countries, where, despite attaining independence more than fifty years ago, they have not made significant strides in economic development (Healey, and Robinson, 1994, p. 41). This creates the debate whether authoritarian regime is the best for low-income countries to stir up economic growth.
Authoritarian Rule
Unlike liberal democracy, this system allows limited freedom for its subject. Also, the state has absolute power and citizens are expected to be subordinate to the state. This system is not common in modern times, but some countries, like North Koreans, are reported to be under the system. Certain features characterize this kind of governance, which include but are not limited to having an executive that is not well defined, low social mobilization, and lastly, minimal political participation (Wright, 2008, pp.322-343). The proponent of this system argues that it is the best model of governance to steer economic development for low-income countries. One of the main reasons that make the model attractive is its ability to make decisive and unpopular decisions which are essential, especially, for low-income countries that need major changes to foster economic development. Historically, Turkey is often cited as a country that made impressive economic progress under a dictator. However, replicating the same in developing countries, especially in Africa remains a puzzle that raises more questions than answers. For instance, dictators like Idi Amin Dada and Mobutu Seseko made their country lag behind economically. The same case is true for North Korea, which has since lagged behind economically. This is illustrative of how deficient is this model, thus, calling for an alternative one. Another model which is becoming popular is the illiberal democracy (Gerring et al., 2005, pp.323-364). Like the other two forms of governance, it is often advocated for in low-income countries.
Illiberal Democracy
It is a hybrid form of political governance; therefore, it tends to be between authoritarian rule and liberal democracy. For this reason, the system is also referred to as partial democracy. Good examples of countries that are slowly embracing this form of governance include Russia and China (Zakaria, 1997, pp. 22-43). There are a number of common features that characterize these systems which include periodic elections, a limited openness of society or the running of the government and also, the system does little to limit the powers of those in government. This system tends to solve most of the problem that both Authoritarian and democratic rule come with, therefore, ac ting as a bridge between the two. The best example of this model has been used in Singapore, a country that made tremendous economic progress within a short span of time despite having no natural resources. Singapore allows free elections to take place periodically but has numerous laws and regulations put in place to limit the operations of the opposition, the unions, academia, and other organizations. Singapore is not an isolated case; Malaysia and South Korea are other examples that have made tremendous economic development under the tighter control of power.
Why a hybrid political system is the best for Economic Development in Low-income Countries
A form of governance that balances the two systems is important for economic development in low-income countries. Proponents of this idea argue that an illiberal democratic form of government has a number of features that make it ideal for low-income countries. To start with, making unpopular changes, the form of governance understands that for economic development to take place, leaders must not always dance to the public tunes. In particular, economic development requires constant changes to be made that may not auger well with the public. Therefore, political leaders have to make tough, unpopular but necessary changes that will steer economic growth and development. This is not always the case in liberal democracy as the government is careful not to offend the public (Rodrik, and Wacziarg, 2005, pp.50-55). Also, it has been established that developing countries experience both subnational and ethnic conflicts, which serve as a stabling block for economic development. Therefore, there is the need for a strong government with enough power to suppress such conflicts. Again, liberal democracy is not in a position to suppress such conflicts. This is another reason that makes it prudent for low-income countries to embrace the form of governance to achieve economic growth. Another reason that makes this model ideal for developing nations is its ability to make savings by deferring consumptions. This again, is not possible in a liberal democracy, since the government is under tighter control from the public to raise the amount spent on social welfare, which in turn decrease the rate of saving or rather, accumulation.
On the other hand, economic development cannot be progressive under a strong government that continuously makes unpopular policies. This condition is suitable for popular unrest and revolutions. Thus, illiberal democracy provides room for accountability and periodic elections to subject the leadership to the public and also gain the mandate and legitimacy to govern (Zakaria, 1997, pp.22-43). Also, proponents of illiberal democracy argue that authoritarian rule tend to be corrupt, rent-seeking and one that benefits the inner leadership. On the other hand, the illiberal system benefits a large number of people by promoting large distribution of benefits. This is another aspect of illiberal democracy that makes it more fitting to be used in low-income countries to steer economic development.
Application of the illiberal democracy in different countries
There are a number of historical facts or evidence that demonstrates the success of this system. The commonly used examples are countries from the east, often referred as the Asian Tigers, whose system was neither pure democratic nor authoritarian. They include Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Hong Kong. Theirs was to create an open society that incorporates both democratic and authoritarian rule, and as a result, within less than fifty years, they have developed to become one of the richest countries in Asia (Goodman, and White, 2006, pp. 21-42). On the other hand, most African and Latin American countries adopted either liberal democracy or authoritarian rule (Leftwich, 1993, pp.605-624). They include Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Democratic Republic of Congo under Mobutu Seseko, while in Latin America, Mexico and Chile among many other countries are included in this category. Their economic progress has been slow, therefore, creating an impression that a different model may work better than what is currently in place.
Conclusion
Therefore, it is clear that although liberal democracy and an authoritarian rule may be effective in certain circumstances, low-income countries need an illiberal democratic model to steer economic development since it incorporates both the advantages of the two systems and at the same acts as a solution for their weaknesses. Most importantly, however, this is a method that has been used for different countries and proved to be a success, while the other two have been attributed to slow economic progress experienced in low-income countries.
References
Diamond, L., 2015. Hybrid regimes. In In Search of Democracy (pp. 163-175). Routledge.
Gerring, J., Bond, P., Barndt, W.T. and Moreno, C., 2005. Democracy and economic growth: A historical perspective. World Politics, 57(3), pp.323-364.
Goodman, R. and White, G., 2006. Welfare orientalism and the search for an East Asian welfare model. In The East Asian Welfare Model (pp. 21-42). Routledge.
Healey, J.M. and Robinson, M., 1994. Democracy, governance and economic policy: Sub-Saharan Africa in comparative perspective. Overseas Development Institute.
Leftwich, A., 1993. Governance, democracy and development in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 14(3), pp.605-624.
Leftwich, A., 2002. Democracy and development. New Political Economy, 7(2), pp.269-281.
ODI, A.R.M., 2007. Analysing the relationship between democracy and development: Defining basic concepts and assessing key linkages. Development, 23, p.25.
Rodrik, D. and Wacziarg, R., 2005. Do democratic transitions produce bad economic outcomes?. American Economic Review, 95(2), pp.50-55.
Wright, J., 2008. Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), pp.322-343.
Zakaria, F., 1997. The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign affairs, pp.22-43.
