Democracy and Development - Solutions

Acknowledging the immense diversity of countries with regard to historical, economic, political, and cultural factors, it is almost self-evident that there will be no one-size-fits-all solution for policy makers that would help promote peace and prosperity on a global scale, "anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances" (Jeanne Kirkpatrick).

But despite ongoing controversial academic debates, it is probably fair to say that a consensus view would emphasize that the degree of democracy in a particular country is shaped by its institutional framework and by its economic performance. This is not to deny that there may also be reverse causality, but the first order effects appear to run from institutions and economic performance to democracy. So these are the two principal avenues that policy makers could use to increase the degree of democracy.

If history is any guide, the evidence appears to suggests that counties which have achieved the status of a full democracy are (very) unlikely to revert to an autocratic regime. But according to the same logic, democracy is unlikely to last in poor countries which have not developed a set of deep institutions that are conducive for sustained growth. The focus of international policy makers should be on middle income countries, where the degree of democracy appears to be rather volatile, sometimes even in the presence of strong economic growth.

Placing effective constraints on executive authority appears to be the number one strategy if democracy is to consolidate and prosper in fragile middle income countries. This is not to deny that there are many open questions on the details and on the implementation of such a strategy, which may require country-specific answers. It would be essential to identify which parts of an institutional framework would matter most for a given country, conditional on the historical, political, cultural, and economic context.

A successful strategy will also have to re-distribute political and economic power. This problem is acute in deeply divided societies, where ethnic fragmentation and the extraction of resource rents may dominate the political and economic decision making of the elites. Strong economic growth is probably necessary but not sufficient to overcome the institutional status quo, which may be the very reason for the absence of a sustainable path of development in the first place.

While it is fairly obvious that the prevailing type of institutions matter for the success of democracy, the type of economic growth may also matter. Pro-poor growth is much more likely to gather support for democracy compared to a growth regime where most benefits go into a few pockets only. This channel should be kept in mind by international policy makers when deciding on foreign aid. However, it would be important to recognize that (domestic) politics will greatly matter for economic outcomes, so both areas should never be considered in isolation.

Support for democracy by the international community will also depend on the geopolitical situation. Democracies that developed after the demise of the Former Soviet Union apparently had a much better start than democracies that emerged during the Cold War. It is an open question for debate whether the ongoing financial crisis will rebalance contemporary world politics towards a model of authoritarian capitalism, or whether economic forces will finally generate a change towards democracy in fast-growing authoritarian societies.