Paper I Development Governance and Irony of Democracy Ashraf & Nurulhuda Sakib

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No.
30, June 2011 (pp103-

125)
Development, Governance and Irony of Democracy

- The Veracity Précis -
Dr. Md. Ashraf Hossain1
Nurul Huda Sakib2
I. Introduction
The problem of the economic development of then the undeveloped countries moved to
the centre of world attention at the end of World War-II amid great hopes that, given the
political will, it could be speedily solved. Albeit, most of those nations, after six decades,
yet remained as least developed countries (LDCs) having vast peoples under
internationally recognized poverty line. While many countries failed to developed, Japan
and East Asian tigers – popularly known as newly industrialized economies (NIEs)
appear to have succeeded within much shorter periods than the western developed
countries (DCs). What conditions allow an economy to takeoff? What are the lessons of
past conventional and authoritarian development strategies? How Japan and Asian NIEs
experience differ from western DCs? How can the new spirit of liberty be brought
together with harnessing the capacities of the poverty both for securing good governance
and sustained economic growth? The theory and experiences can provide us valuable
guidance on the appropriate role of government. Both Western and East Asian
governments have played some common roles, as indicated by Stiglitz (1996 and 1997) 1)
to spurred development, apparently those are essential in all type of economies. So far,
one cannot discuss development or even poverty alleviation in particular without thinking
about polity, the state as a political entity. What political system ensures better
governance?
We have been passing through an eccentric democratic era, since cold war finished. There
is a misconception among many that now-DCs became rich absolutely under democratic
political system; and in particular, many young educated even strongly believe so. The
United Nations (UN) at the beginning of 21st century through HRD Report 20022) has
called for a new emphasis on "deepening democracy" at the local, national and
international level. Seldom anyone would disagree with it in current days. Traditionally,
some western DCs have been campaigning in such ways that democracy like an antibiotic
that can be able to cure all social ills! Nevertheless, misuse of democracy, as flawed
medicine does to human, could be severe havoc to the country’s economic-growth, and
may slow-down the “Economic takeoff” - a popular view among East Asian economists
and policymakers.
Successful economic takeoff requires several conditions be met and that the engine runs
at full throttle.3) We like such metaphor as it implies that at the time of takeoff everything
1
Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, Eastern University, Dhaka.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Government and Politics, Jahangirnagar University, Savar,
Dhaka.
103
Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103-
125)
has to work for the plane to become airborne. The juggernaut of conventional
development intervention, as openly pushing for early democratization simply has been
hurtling development of now-LDCs, very harshly because of giving less attention on
country’s developmental preparedness or avoiding the critical moment for economic
takeoff. What exactly democracies are and what exactly they ought to be, are issues
which have become perhaps more complicated with the passage of time; and apparently,
the USA and its western allies - the alias prophets of democracy, are perhaps the abusers
of their own ideology; and their incredulous and double-standard political policy
strategies and sly strategic objectives are prime developmental obstacles in contemporary
LDCs.
Democracy is not a new concept at all, as ancient Greek philosophers in their great works
had been discussed the issues of government, development, democracy and governance,
etc. Neither Plato nor Aristotle liked democracy; and both of the philosophers preferred
qualitative governance by a "few good guys". Hopefully, we do not underestimate the
importance of democracy rather we are investigating the democracy-links to development
through analyzing the background features of the economic takeoff periods; which
hopefully be helpful way to reach in a conclusion, whether democracy is actually an
essential preconditions or not for economic takeoff of now-LDCs, their development and
good governance.
At the outset, we briefly reveal on two established development patterns namely, the
“Western Industrial” and the “East Asian Rapid Growth”, their initial conditions and
prime policy strategies for the economic takeoff. Our prime intension is to summing-up
the irony features of democracy from local to international levels, the most uncommon
discussions of politics; and then we reach in a conclusion about the roles of ‘‘democracy’’
in development and good governance. So far, there is lack of political-will to develop
solid political institutions toward to democratic transitions and effective governance, the
essential preconditions for all-round development.
II. Movement of Nations toward Development and Democracy

What are the established ideas of economic development? How the contemporary rich
nations had developed? History is a mirror on which the image of the present comes into
focus by comparison with similarities and differences of the past. Here the authors tried
to construct such a mirror regarding two established development patterns under which
some nations have developed.
Development Patterns, Developed Nations and LDCs

Western rich nations have long history of development and industrialization under stable
and very limited or non democratic environments. Whereas, Japan and then the Asian
tigers appear to have succeeded first with their industrial policy strategies under
autocratic and/or limited democratic regimes; however it is generally recognized that
many countries in Asia and elsewhere under different democratic systems including so-
called military-democracy for decades have been failed to develop because of the
combination of various ostrich policies in their development planning and industrial
strategies.
Industrial Revolution and Western Developed Nations: Western development strategy
104
125)
has long history and passed through various stages of industrialization that spread to the
industrial revolution (IR) started from Europe in early 18 th century. Among three basic
stages of IR, the first stage usually predicted as ‘‘Textiles & Steam Era: 1712-1830’’ that
harmonized with many machinery invents and patents, whereas in the succeeding stage
(1830-1875) new services had been promoted to IR further because of those inventions.
The third stage (1875-1905) is most remarkable in IR due to new invent in
communication, electricity and chemical sectors. So far, industrialization had been deep-
rooted in western countries prior World War I.
Table 1: The Basic Stages of Industrial Revolution (IR) 4)
IR Stages Machinery Invents and Patents / Machinery-based Services

Textiles & Steam Era: e.g., the Newcomen’s steam engine (1712) that later
improved by James Watts in1770s, John Kay’s the flying shuttle (1733), James
1st Stage Hargreaves’s the spinning jenny (1764), the water frame patents by Richard
(1712~1830) Arkwright (1769), Samuel Crompton perfects the spinning mule (1779), Edmund
Cartwright’s patents a power loom (1785), Eli Whitney patents the cotton gin
(1793), Robert Fulton’s steamboat service (1807), George Stephenson begins rail
service between Liverpool and London (1830), etc.
New Industrial Services Era: e.g. Samuel Cunard begins transatlantic steamship
service (1840), Henry Bessemer develops the Bessemer converter (1856), the first
2nd Stage commercial oil well is drilled in Pennsylvania (1859), the Siemens brothers improve
(1830~1875) steel-making by developing the open hearth furnace (1866), etc.
Communication, Electricity & Chemicals Era: e.g. Samuel F. B. Morse invents

the telegraph (1836), Cyrus Field lays the first successful transatlantic cable
3rd Stage (1866), A. GRAHAM BELL INVENTS THE TELEPHONE (1876), Thomas
(1875-1905) Edison invents the incandescent light bulb (1892), Rudolf Diesel patents the diesel
engine (1899), G. Marconi invents the wireless (1879), and the Wright Brothers
make the first successful airplane flight (1903), etc.
The western development pattern deep-rooted from the IR with a start from Europe,
especially in the 18th century all of Western Europe gradually began to industrialize but in
England it had been accelerated rapidly. During that period, Japan and the NIEs countries
were low-income countries and their growth had been based on available local resources
and indigenous technological innovations.5)
East Asian Industrialization and Growth Miracle: The new wave of industrialization
after World War-II was surging successively from early-starting to late-starting countries,
specifically in the last few decades of 20th century, when Asian NIEs followed by Japan,
had shown the strongest industrial growth in the world. As for instance, in 1960s, when
the advanced capitalist countries had a most dynamic vitality that accomplished 5-6
percent of industrial growth rates, both Japan and NIEs were proud of double-digit
industrial growth rates during late-1960s, 1970s and part of 1980s. 6) The overall economic
growth rates in those countries for two decades had been 7 to 8 percent or more a year.
The typical model would fail to predict that the Japan and NIEs would become high
achievers, and their high-growth experience is often called a Miracle. Average per capita
income of Japan in 1880 was US$660 that before the World War II had risen to US$1500
105
125)
by 1940 at 1980’s prices, when real per capita income was US$9140 and increased to
US$29,700 in 1990; and Japan had overtaken all development countries in average per
income in early-1990s.7) The four tigers – the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Taiwan,
Hong Kong, and Singapore – started to grow rapidly in the late-1970s; and the IMF
added them to the list of advanced economies in its World Economic Outlook in mid-
1990s. Malaysia and Thailand started to grow rapidly in the mid-1980s, and China soon
followed.
What a difference within two-three decades assembled in Asian NIEs, for instance, the
South Korea - whose GDP per capita in 1960 was roughly the same as India’s, became a
member of OECD in 1996, the only second country from Asia after Japan. Conversely,
the enormous development investments of post World War II period under different
political systems have so far failed to transform the situation of the poor in then the
LDCs, especially the more populous ones, like Bangladesh, where mass poverty still
persist in a severe form. 8) The East Asian success story raises many issues as, why did
some economies grow rapidly and joined the group of industrial countries while others
failed to grow at all? How did productivity growth increase? Are there any common
trends among the economies that did takeoff?
Economic Takeoff of Nations toward Development
There is a critical moment in development for economic takeoff – a popular view among
East Asian economists and policymakers, and usually elaborated development stages. The
old idea of economic takeoff is, in which a stagnant agrarian economy was beginning to
industrialize, seen as an airplane taking-off. 9) Successful takeoff requires that several
conditions - principally economic, social, and political prerequisites, be met and that the
engines run at full throttle; and it implies that at the time of takeoff everything has to
work for the plane to become airborne.
Initial Conditions and Economic Takeoff: Typically an economy’s metamorphosis

initiates from an agrarian state to an economy with a simple industry such as textiles, then
to an economy with more sophisticated manufacturing, and eventually to service
economy mirrors the history of science and technology. In line with this, various experts
have been listed favorite mind-sets in their own-way. Kuznets 10) for instance, observed
that countries that had achieved ‘‘modern economic growth’’ e.g. European countries,
USA, Canada, and Japan, shared some explicit characteristics – modern scientific thought
and technology were applied to industry; real GDP per capita grew at a rapid and
sustained rate, usually accompanied by population status; the industrial structure was
rapidly transformed; and international contacts and trade expanded. With more data from
the Asian NIEs, this list of characteristics may require some rethinking.
In a typical regression of cross-country growth rates for last few decades are regressed on
initial conditions, including such economic and social variables like political stability,
education levels, population status, skill-ness of labor, technology-absorption capacity,
and openness to trade, etc. The background features during economic involution period of
Japan and NIEs were quite different than the western DCs. Table 2 categorized the basic
characteristics of two development patterns in abstractive form.
106
125)
Table 2: Checklists of Western and East Asian Development Strategies 11)

East Asian Pattern
Western Pattern [Japan, Asian NIEs, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.]
[Capitalistic European Countries, USA, etc
At a Glance Image: Constitutional government;At a Glance Image: Authoritarian rules (e.g.
Political stability, Sustained economic growth; Military-juntas/ dictatorship, Aristocracy or
Prime beneficiaries & controllers of the UN & bureaucracy or strong leadership with limited
world trade; Capitalistic economy; Transformed democracy); Politically stable with little human-
into modern democratic ideologies (Post War II) rights; Resource poor but newly industrialized
but human rights violators in other places due to with export-oriented strategies; Magic-like
incredulous or double- standard political policies economic growth rates, often double- digit, even
& sly strategic objectives (e.g. oil price control or without arms-trade; Transformed into democratic
arms trade), etc. system & human-rights situations improved, etc.

Initial Conditions Initial Conditions
 Population: Mostly homogeneous & low  Population: Typically homogeneous and
density. high density.
 Better socio-economic conditions (e.g. high  Severe socio-economic conditions: e.g.
literacy); Technologies invents & vast peoples under poverty & illiteracy,
communications improved. traditional way of livings.
 Long development history e.g. cultural & Rural subsistence & closed or mixed
industrial revolution (IR) with skilled manpower economy with agro- employment over 80%
& agro- employment below 50%. (unskilled & disguised).
 New services with IR but resources mobilized Less or no natural resources, and basically
from & trade facilities created in their respective isolated from western world. Albeit, in Meiji Era
colonies. (1868-1912) Japan had established linkages with
 Mostly monarchy or aristocracy/oligarchy but outside world.
from 18th century limited democracy (for  Monarchy, dictatorship/oligarchy or
businessmen & elites only) but abuse of human colonial rules (e.g. Korea); and abuse of human
rights in colonies. rights, etc.
 Planning and carrying social development Prior World War I, planning & carrying
strategies (Universal education, Social gaps social development strategies (e.g. in Japan
reduced, etc.). compulsory primary education started in early
Meiji Era).
Post World War I Periods: Limited democracyPost World War I Periods: Political stability
(e.g. prior World War II, no voting rights for through monarchy, aristocracy/ oligarchy and/or
women!); Trade-expansion and conflicts strong leaderships or robust colonial
creations in colonial territories; Industrialization bureaucracies; Initiatives for higher education &
deep- rooted due to invented new machines, research facilities; Quickly absorbed western
technologies and communications, new services technologies and skills towards industrialization;
& skills development, and free or cheaper raw- Business promotion and infrastructure developed
materials supplied from colonial territories, etc. but severely damaged during World War II.
Post World War II Periods: Post World War II Periods:
 Transition into modern democracy with little  Authoritarian rules, e.g. dictatorship/
exception of Eastern Europe (until cold-war), military- juntas, aristocracy or limited-
but unjust or confused political polarization (e.g. democracy, leaderships or strong bureaucracy,
supporting dictators, even if democratic!); etc.
 Labor-saving technologies, capitalism & export  Planning & carrying nation-buildings
promotion including arms trade; etc. programs, e.g., Higher education, research &
 Economic growth and expansion of military skill-trainings, Poverty redressed, Social gaps
107
125)
power (Arm-race during cold-war periods); and reduced (& caste system abolished, e.g. Eta
arms sales in politically-conflicted regions society in Japan).
(created by themselves during de-colonization  Successful land reforms (e.g. Japan,
period or later on); Korea, & Taiwan, etc.) and structural
 Post cold-war situations became worse, arms transformations; etc.
sales increased drastically & new predatory-ness  Effective combination of labor-using &
of resources, as had been during colonial era. labor- saving technologies; Promotion of
export- oriented local entrepreneurs; Rapid
absorption of modern technologies; and
integration with global markets, etc.
The western development pattern, deeply rooted from the IR with a start from Europe –
can be defined as the application of power-driven machinery to manufacturing
accelerated with ensured raw materials supplied from the colonized territories of their
might, especially in the 18th century all of Western Europe began to industrialize
gradually but in England it had been accelerated rapidly. Conversely, Japan and Asian
NIEs, all of which are poor in natural resources and densely populated; and initially all of
them had been faced severe problems of poverty and food insecurity having huge
uneducated and unskilled workforce. However, Japan’s transformation from an agrarian
state in the 1890s to an industrial one in the 1930s was much faster than Britain’s earlier
transformation. Japan became industrial super power very quickly having almost no
natural resources either of her own, nor much even from her tiny and short-lived colonial
territories. The geographical proximity and cultural similarities were helpful for the Asian
NIEs to follow Japan.
Restructuring Policy Strategies, East Asian Successful Take-off and Now-LDCs: The
reasons behind the East Asian quick development and tremendous economic growth are
many, those have been reported elsewhere broadly as– the successful industrial
restructuring policy strategies, area-based development strategies as part of various
comprehensive national development plans including national land development plans,
known as ZENSO (Zenkoku Sogo Kaihatsu Keikaku), 12) and reducing rural-urban and
social gaps and redress poverty through sectoral reforms, harmonization of global
industrial system with local industrial communities, and export-oriented production and
business strategies, etc.13) However, it should not be out of our mind that such tremendous
development achievement was actually rooted from and based on past development
policies and strategies started from Meiji restoration (1968-1912). Japan, flying in front,
is flanked by Hong Kong and Singapore, and followed by the South Korea and Taiwan,
and behind them are Malaysia, Thailand, The Philippines, and Indonesia, etc.
The economic takeoff that had been discussed by some experts since early-1960s; and
probably first had analyzed by Clifford Geertz (1963) 14) in his study of the agricultural
economy of Java (Indonesia) in the 1950s and 1960s. He sought to explain why Japan
developed so differently from Java; and found that in Japan during the previous more
than a century almost all additional population was absorbed in cities and in modern
sectors of the economy, whereas in Java only the economy had tried to involutes. At the
time of that study, economists were looking for the takeoff point at which the economies
of new nations would gain enough momentum to industrialize and grow on their own.
Greetz attributed the lack of takeoff in Java to colonialism, especially in 1830-70 when
Java, he thought, lost its chance to develop like Japan did. Probably the country also lost
second chance, as it did not able to follow the Asian NIEs because of long military
dictatorship without any development missions and visions. Geertz did not discuss other
108
125)
important issues - the behaviors, beliefs, and organizational capacities of Japan versus
Indonesia. It is these very qualities of the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese, which have
enabled them to modernize in their own way. Almost 5 decades after his study, Indonesia
is not in a state of involution yet; albeit, with huge natural resources the country has been
moving ahead economically than the resource-poor LDCs.
The post-independence large industrial promotion strategy in many LDCs was a

combination of various ostrich policies, above all, lack of political leaderships,
inadequate infrastructure, and clear development visions and missions for economic
takeoff. As of Auty (1995), 15) the provision of an inadequate infrastructure including
education and technical skills, and the lack of realistic policies failed after World War-II,
however to industrialize; and the vast rural people totaled to three-fourth or more had not
been absorbed in agriculture fully, neither been shifted to the other sectors.
Economic Development and Popular Metaphors: For economic development, various

experts enlisted their favorite metaphors in their own ways, such as Stiglitz (1997) 16) has
enlisted four metaphors – engine, chemical, biological, and economy-equilibrium
metaphors, whereas Ito (1997)17) mentioned three as economic takeoff, biological, and
flying geese. To grow, resource-poor economies, as Japan and NIEs, are much dependent
on imported inputs, and they have to face demand for their products, often from aboard,
which leads export growth basically drives takeoff. However, we also think, the basic
structures of the governments in any society the politics and good governance, economic
policies, and knowledge in combination shape socio-economic life and livelihoods
security, above all, the rapid economic growth, eventually sustaining development.
It is now generally recognized that the past development policies for decades in now-
LDCs had been failed to deliver sustainable development to those living in poverty as
almost all programs represent the classic top-down approach to development, where local
governments and communities had little or no say in the process. So far, one cannot
discuss development or even poverty alleviation in particular without thinking about
polity, the state as a political entity. What political system ensures better governance?
We have concentrated our focus more on economic takeoff issue; and here we also like to
illustrates a completely different issue, the ‘‘democracy’’, whether it is an essential
precondition or not in economic development of now-LDCs, whether it is essentially
ensures good governance or it is to establish western human rights that however may not
be well fits in other cultures and socio-religious settings, or it is anything else, like
western political propagandas that resembling for the necessities of fulfilling their
concealed strategic objectives.
At the beginning of 21st century, as we have mentioned earlier, the UN has called for a
new emphasis on "deepening democracy" at the local, national and international level;
and the same HRD report18) has warned against compromising human rights and
democracy in the fight against global terror, and surprisingly it has also strongly disputed
the notion that authoritarian regimes are better for political stability and economic
growth. Such views are oversimplification of reality as there is yet no implemented proof,
even no tested citations that ensure “democracy” is essential precondition for good
governance, political stability and economic growth.
109
125)
Besides parallelism, the Japanese development experience has shown some dissimilarity
with other developed nations. So far so on, the mixed development experiences during
last few decades under democratic disciplines and authoritarian rules have shown us,
there is no way to reach such clear-cut conclusion. In recent times, the UN itself has been
suffering from severe image crisis, as it didn’t able to improve the human security
situations because it openly became flatter of USA and her western allies. Further, in UN
system itself, there is no real democratic element, as for instance, the Veto-Power of the
five permanent members of Security Council, neither a democratic nor a global political
problem solving system; however the details focus here on UN is per se out of the scope
of this paper.
East Asian Authoritarianism and Nation-Building in Briefs 19)

Japan and the NIEs countries, as like Western DCs did, prior their industrial revolution,
market-economy mechanism and democratic involution, had reached in better socio-
economic position either through monarchy or a dictatorship or aristocracy (or limited
democracy) or an oligarchy. Let us give here the brief overviews on political aspects of
Japan and some Asian NIEs prior their economic takeoff periods.
Japan: Modern nation-building period of Japan started from Meiji restoration (1868-
1912) and the political, social and economic structure had dismantled by the Meiji
government; in our view, it was the basic turning point for development of the country.
Gradually the hereditary caste system was abolished, freedom of occupation was
permitted, and a centralized hierarchy of government bodies was established through
creation of nation-wide robust bureaucratic setups. During the Meiji restoration, Japan
had been situated at the crossroads of the international power scramble; and Meiji
government’s nation-building basic policy was "Rich-Nation Strong-Military" to catch up
with the western nations.20) However, during the era of the weak emperor Taisho (1912-
26), the political power shifted from the oligarchic clique to the parliament and the
democratic parties; and in post World War I periods, Japan's economical situation
worsened. During the 1930s, the military established almost complete control over the
government; and many political opponents were assassinated, and communists
persecuted, and indoctrination and censorship in education and media were intensified.
Navy and army officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including the one of
the Prime Minister.21) During post War-II periods, Japan gradually transformed into a
democratic system, and the politics has been conducted in a framework of a
parliamentary representative democratic monarchy, where Prime Minister is the head of
government. Even Japanese politics uses a multi-party system, the Liberal Democratic
Party (LDP) only had been ruled the country (1955-2009), except for a short-lived
coalition government formed from its opposition parties in 1993; and the liberal Social
Democratic Party (SDP) came in power on 16 September 2009.
South Korea: Despite the country’s brief but checkered history, with no less than nine
constitutional amendments and three aborted democratic openings had been against
military-juntas/dictators between 1948 and 1988. President Park Chung-hee, after ruling
for 18 years, was assassinated in 1979; and such abrupt ending of an authoritarian regime
left Korean politics in a state of instability. Since the late-1980s, the South Korea, a
formerly war-ravaged country, has acquired a scintillating dual identity as an East Asian
model of economic prosperity and limited political democracy toward establishing
110
125)
pluralistic governing institutions and protecting the political and civil liberties of its
citizens. Korea became the first, the third-wave democracy in East Asia to transfer power
peacefully to an opposition party, only in early 1998. Although there is little doubt that
Korea is now a secure electoral democracy, with electoral politics the only game in town,
its journey toward democratic consolidation is far from complete.
Singapore: The politics of Singapore take place in a framework of a parliamentary

republic, having a dominant-party (the People's Action Party) system has been
dominating the politics since the general election of 1959 (was then a self-governing state
within the British Empire), when Lee Kuan Yew became the country’s first prime
minister. The opposition parties and political analysts argue Singapore is a de facto one
party state or a "hybrid" country with authoritarian and few democratic elements, etc.
Western countries consider the form of government to be closer to authoritarianism that
could be considered an illiberal democracy, totalitarian democracy or procedural
democracy. The “Reporters Without Borders (RWB)” ranked Singapore 140th out of 167
countries in its 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index, 22) even if in 2010 it has recognized
as number one corruption-free country in the globe.23)
Taiwan: In 1949, after losing control of mainland China following the Chinese civil war,
the KMT (or Chinese Nationalist Party) withdrew to Taiwan and Chiang Kai-shek
declared martial law; and Japan formally renounced all territorial rights to Taiwan in
1952. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a single-party state for forty years until democratic
reforms were promulgated in mid-1990s, which culminated in the first ever direct
presidential election in 1996; and in 2000 the first non-KMT president was elected as
president but the presidential election of 2008 marked the second peaceful transfer of
power, again back to the KMT.
Economic Development and Transitions into Modern Democracy

Movement of Nations towards Development and Modern Democracy: The Western
DCs prior their industrial revolution, market-economy mechanism and democratic
involution, had reached in better socio-economic position, especially they had educated
their peoples, through monarchy or a dictatorship or aristocracy (and limited democracy)
or an oligarchy. New markets were won and controlled in colonized territories to feed the
industrially revolutionized Europe, and new places were created to procure the cheapest
raw materials for their industries back home. When they became rich and educated their
peoples then they approached the idea of democracy, as for instance many democratic
elements had been recognized gradually during post World War II periods, such as
universal human rights including the women voting right, official-abolition of the social
castes and discriminations, etc.
So far, modern democracy in western world had introduced immediate after World War
II periods; and apparently, since then many countries have been trying to catch-up
western countries in the process of democracy and market economy, as visualized vision
of country-grouping shown through Figure 1. The countries, like Japan and Asian NIEs,
those who carefully came forward towards to take-off their economy under stable
political environments as part of their authoritarian rules, have succeeded to develop.
Having high savings, high investment, and export promotion are often cited as a common
denominator among these economies, all of which are poor in natural resources and
densely populated, but there are some basic differences in their development strategies.
111
125)
Large industrial conglomerates dominate Japan’s and Korean economies, whereas small-
scale businesses propelled growth in Taiwan and Singapore. Japan did not rely much on
foreign capital but raw materials for its investment, whereas Korea and Singapore
borrowed large capital from aboard before achieving surplus in their current accounts.
The government mostly owns financial institutions in Taiwan and Singapore, whereas
Japanese and Korean financial institutions are basically private and closely connected to
large companies.
Figure 1: Movement of Nations toward to Development and Modern Democracy

24)
Market Economy
Western
Capitalist
Japan World
S. Korea East
&Taiwan Thailand & European
Malaysia Nations
Authoritarian* Democracy
Bangladesh**
India
Pakistan
China &
Singapore
Indonesia,
N. Korea, Cuba Philippines
& Myanmar
& Cambodia
Centrally-Planned
&/or Mixed Economy
Notes: This figure is an explanation of the periods between Post World War II to now, not drawn
to exact time scale; and for lucidity of the figure, only selected countries are considered
here.
* Communist and Socialist nations as well as countries under dictatorship (military juntas)
and monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc.
** The country was part of India, as East Bengal; and after World War II it became part of
Pakistan as Eastern wing that became independent in 1971.
In absence of market-economy mechanism (closed economy), the communists and
socialist blocks virtually had collapsed in early 1990s. Those countries during democratic
involution however, has moved easily to democratic discipline having little political
112
125)
unrest as they were in much better position, basically in universal education, than the
now-LDCs. Conversely, the countries with long tradition of uninterrupted democratic
practice (e.g. India) have fared very poor within the overall context of the economic
growth, effective governance, income inequality, and socio-religious gaps, etc.! Due to
many political zigzagging and long governance crises under various democratic practices,
it is however not an easy task to locate the actual position of now-LDCs. The American
case is typical one; and the current US foreign policy strategies and attitudes, somehow
comparable to the colonial rules.
III. Democracy, Governance, and Development: The Brief Historical Overviews
The real issue that both the success of East Asia and the failure of the socialist
experiment and/or diverse long democratic practices in now-LDCs raise is - what an
appropriate roles of government in economic development? What exactly democracies
are and what exactly they ought to be, are issues which became perhaps more
complicated with the passage of time. Democracy is not a new concept; even if, prior
World War II it had not been very popular political entity for effective governance and
development.
Ancient Views on Government and Democracy: Aristotle offered only two qualitative
measurements for government - good and bad, and quantitatively, the Greek philosopher
classified them as a government by one (good monarchy or a dictatorship), a few
(aristocracy or an oligarchy) and by many (democracy or anarchy). Neither Plato nor
Aristotle would likes democracy. Because their understanding was, democracy tries to
make a donkey an elephant by (the majority) calling a donkey an elephant! Both of the
philosophers preferred governance by a "few good guys". Things have changed since then
– many prefer democracy not because it is the perfect form of government, but it is the
most desirable one since it is more (sanguinely!) corrigible than the leadership of one or a
few.
Limited Democracy and Development: In late 18th Century, some-form of democratic

practices first appeared in Europe. Industrial revolution backed by Renaissance gave
Europe the lead that housed the most powerful countries Spain, Portugal, France and
Britain, etc. Though some of these countries had been practiced ‘‘limited democracies’’
where even the voting rights were limited to elites and rich merchant classes. Their lower
classes were satisfied by a modest standard of living in their own countries, so as not to
rise up against the ruling classes of that time; however, they pursued worst form of
imperialism in other countries. They had promoted and fathered slavery in its utmost
cruel form, trampled, tormented and exploited people of areas they colonized by their
might. Most importantly, western world had been mobilized valuable resources from
their respective colonies for long; and most of those colonial territories gradually became
independent only after World War II, and are basically branded as then the LDCs, in
another name now known as third world or developing countries.
Democratic Transitions in Asia: Japan has developed its economy through nation-led
bureaucratic development strategy since the Meiji Era (1868~1912) and democracy had
been exogenously introduced only after World War II, and the same strategy had followed
by the Asian NIEs in one way or other, as mentioned earlier. Comparatively high political
stability for economic development in the NIEs was realized by authoritarian political
113
125)
rules at the expense of democracy, human rights, etc. Japan having almost no natural
resources has added new waves in development that little different than the western world
did; and the success of Japan and then the Asian tigers, demonstrates the effectiveness of
a more market-base development strategy; even if those governments not persist fully in
the rigid planning model, especially they did not err by going to the other extreme, such
as early-democratization that in many now-LDCs are pushing to practice by the America
and its western allies, the alias prophets of democracy; even if they themselves have been
abusing their own democratic ideologies in other parts of the world. In recent years,
Chinese economy has been growing rapidly even without democratic philosophy,
although there are other favorable elements.25) Again, Malaysian experience having
comparatively limited democratic practices but strong leadership has shown us another
example for rapid development. Whereas, in absence of market-economy mechanism
(closed economy), the East European communists and socialist blocks virtually had
collapsed in early-1990s; albeit, their better infrastructural positions, basically in
universal education and skills than the now-LDCs had helped much easily move into the
modern democratic discipline. Conversely, the countries with long tradition of
uninterrupted democratic practice (e.g. India) have been performing very poor within the
overall context of the economic growth, effective governance, and reducing income
inequality and socio-religious gaps, etc. After the first few years of independence,
democratic rule in Pakistan yielded to military dictatorship and became deep-rooted
military-culture, whereas India preserved its democracy partly because not only elite’s
commitment but due to huge regional as well as socio-cultural differences (e.g. there are
33 major languages of which 19 are official) to control by any military juntas or dictator.
Democratic Juggernauts and Contemporary LDCs: Prior socioeconomic

development, especially universal educational achievement for all, neither western
countries nor Japan, and nor even Asian NIEs had involutes democratic ideologies, as we
have indicated earlier. The modern democracy in western world has been promised equal
rights to their citizens, gave the right for individuals to decide by whom they shall be
governed, and the priorities be decided and acted upon.
However, the western democratic-juggernaut, basically the pushing for early-

democratization simply has been hurtling development of now-LDCs, because of less or
no attention on socio-cultural and behavioral issues; background features e.g. initial
conditions, educational and skill levels, etc; and local institutional settings, above all
preparedness for their economic takeoff periods. Apparently, the USA and its western
close allies - the alias prophets of democracy, are perhaps the abusers of their own
ideologies; and their incredulous and/or double standard political policy strategies and sly
strategic objectives are the prime developmental obstacles in now-LDCs. The rest of this
article tried to focus on all those aspects, sometimes with particular reference to the
American democracy, a typical case when we compare with the other western
democracies.
IV. Modern Democracy and Development – The Précis of Facts and Realities
In recent times, political regimes of all kinds describe themselves as democracies but it
has not always been so. The HRD 2002 defined the goals of good governance as respect
for fundamental rights and freedom, accountability of the rulers; fair rules (institutions,
and practices governing social interactions); non-discrimination based on race, ethnicity,
114
125)
class, gender or any other attributes; need of future generations to be reflected in current
policies; responsiveness of economic and social policies to people's needs and
aspirations; eradication of poverty; people having a say in decisions affecting their lives,
etc. It is a tall order to measure up to these standards. In fact, most of above issues never
ever and never honestly tried to achieve under democratic system. Apart from the
difficulty of knowing what democracy is, as future destination might be like, how much
credence should we give to the possibility that a given country will actually get there?
New Politic Colonization: The problem of the economic development of then the LDCs
moved to the centre of world attention at the end of World War-II amid great hopes that,
given the political will, it could be speedily solved. As the LDCs, one after another,
became independent of their colonial rulers, and in creation-process, many peculiar
political arrangements were done by the colonial rulers having supports from their
created elite classes for their hidden objectives, especially resources predatory-ness that
later-on resulted many conflicts among LDCs, for instance, the strange-partition of
Kashmir and Bengal territories by the British is the deep-rooted reason behind the long
India-Pakistan conflicts; and the innocent human-beings of both countries already have
suffered a lot from 3 major wars. The new-LDCs governments had placed rapid
economic target high on their policy agenda under the same or similar objective-oriented
as well as elite dominated administrations and infrastructures engineered by the colonial
rulers.
The Political Polarization and Self-Ideology Abuses: In the name of helping then the
LDCs to achieve the development objectives, the governments of the western DCs and
then the new socialist-block or authoritarian states undertook to provide technical and
financial assistance devoid of local realities and preparedness of the LDCs. The
relationship between the various states adopting communism or pursuing liberal
democracy had been strained at best; and the two represented conflicting views of the
world with little room for ideological conciliation and they were neither fairly
implemented their own political ideologies, nor even their policy strategies were for
advancement of the LDCs, rather towards to controlling the regional power and to do
decadent businesses, especially arms-trade. For instance, during whole cold war period,
the Pakistan, a completely military-dominated authoritarian state in South Asia had been
received economic and military supports openly from the USA, and there are dozens of
other such examples of support to the autocratic regimes and human-rights abusers (e.g.
Jordan and Iraq)! Conversely, the former Soviet Union, even had raised placards for
communist blocks, surprisingly had been supported India, the largest democratic country!
Thus, after six decades of the publicized efforts under their double-standard deliberate
policy strategies, in the event to bring about development, the early hopes have been
disappointed.
In post cold war era, accordingly, a coincidence of forces evolved which end some to
believe that this final stage of democratization had arrived, that in fact became a great
threat for human security due to unjust wars in the name of terrorisms or disarmament or
democratic transition but it became clear to the world people about the predatory-motives
and strategic objectives of the so-called prophets of democracy. In regions where there is
no or less conflicts, the resources predatory axis pushed through either western human-
rights or any other political propagandas (e.g. security of other country) in order to secure
fat orders for arms and to capture resources or ensure resources price that remain low
115
125)
(e.g. oil prices in middle east). As for instance, it would be clear if we look on recent
years double standard USA foreign policy strategies basically arm-trade in South Asia –
one way it has been providing military equipments to Pakistan (e.g. military aircrafts) at
the same time selling equipments to India – how to destroy those!
Arm Trade, Western World and Growing Global Insecurity: After cold war, it has
assumed that all systems will conform to the democratization system without addressing
the local culture, traditions and institutions. Indeed, the scarcity of resources and the
tightness of fiscal constraints facing LDCs today make it imperative that resources be
spent efficiently; and they have been spending huge amount for military spreading-out,
even if vast of the peoples are under recognized poverty line. The arms industry is unlike
any other as it operates without any regulation, not even monitored by the UN, and it
suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of
machines designed to kill and maim human-beings. Oxfam says, the irresponsible sale of
weapons to the LDCs is diverting money from development and promoting global
insecurity; and the net result is the now-LDCs whose health and education budgets are
spent on weapons caches. Pakistan’s total defense expenditure in 2002, for instance,
consumed half of the country’s GDP! So, who profits most from this murderous trade?
These days, the USA and it western allies routinely sells weapons not only to the
democratic countries (e.g. India, Taiwan, etc.) but also to the many undemocratic regimes
e.g. Pakistan, most Arab nations, those as of western world, are the gross human rights
abusers!26) In fact, up to $900 billions is spent each year on defense, but only $60 billions
on aid, as has indicated by the Oxfam! Traditionally, the USA, the UK, and France earn
more income from arms sales to LDCs than they give in aid. For instance, in 2002
roughly 90 percent of all arms deliveries to Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and
Africa; and during 1999-2002, the LDCs accounted for 64.6 percent of all arms transfer
agreements made globally; and all those arms basically supplied by the five permanent
members of the UN security council 27) - the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China.
Together, they are responsible for over four-fifth of all reported conventional arms
exports. Oxfam has called for an international treaty to regulate and control the multi-
billion dollar industry. Besides many criticisms, the 5 permanent members of the UN
Security Council together with Germany and Italy account for around 85 percent of the
arms sold during 2002-2009; 28) and traditionally near half of all arms trade even done by
the USA, even if democratic nation!
The USA and its western allies does not actually support democracy in now-LDCs,
especially in the Middle East because “it is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling
families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil prices remain low) than a
wide variety of personalities and policies bound to be thrown up by a democratic
system.” For instance, in the Middle East countries, with the exception of Israel that has
provided an exemplary democratic system for its Jewish citizens, none of America’s
allies in the region could really be considered democracies. Indeed, the USA has reduced
or maintained at low levels support - its economic, military, and diplomatic - to Arab
countries that have experienced substantial political liberalization in recent years, 29) while
it has been increasing support for autocratic regimes e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. The
democratic campaigns of the USA and its western allies are not so visible in resource-
poor areas (e.g. North Korea) or in the countries where resources are already under their
control (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Where such strategy not easy then pushed through either
116
125)
using juggernaut of democracy and western-style human-rights 30) or any other political
propaganda! As was the recent case of Iraq; and another example is Iran, the only
Arabian nations that somehow holding a democratic system but became great enemy of
America, as she is yet not ready to fulfilling the western strategic objectives. Very
recently, some political hooliganism is reported in some Middle East countries, e.g.
Egypt, Libya, Jordan, etc, in the name of democratization.
The US Democracy – At a Glance

Real and participatory democracy is a romantic fiction. The need for political reform is
not limited to LDCs only, in fact, there are no perfect democracies on earth. Democracy
is government “by the people’’ but the responsibility for the survival of democracy rests
on the shoulders of elites. The central proposition of elitism is that all societies are
divided into two classes, the few who govern and the many who are governed. Elitism
implies that public policy does not necessarily reflect demands of ‘‘the people’’ so much
as it reflects the interests and values of elites.31) Elites, not masses, in reality few large
entrepreneurs govern even America, just as in a totalitarian society is shaped by a handful
of guys.
In USA, constitutional review is the prerogative of 9 un-elected persons who hold their
jobs for life. The fact remains, however, that in November 2000 the electoral system in
the USA failed to yield a result that could be widely accepted by most voters. Al Gore
had won the national vote. Had that been enough, he would have become president-elect
forthwith but Electoral College stood in his way! 32) On four such occasions - 1824, 1876,
1888, and 2000, the presidential candidate with the largest popular vote failed to obtain
an electoral vote majority.33)
Majoritarian democracy has been held back to create an island of autocracy – the
Supreme Court, with the power to inhibit the ability of the majority to dictate the
minorities including individuals. Again, vote manipulation and the margin of error in that
election was far greater than the margin of victory, no matter who wins. Conversely, it
was true that more than a month of living without a president-elect had not driven
supporters to riot in the streets or the Joint Chief of Staff had not turned themselves into a
junta, and there were no tanks on the streets. Certainly not only awareness nor even
absolutely the rule of law-enforcement are the reasons behind it but as a result of
complex interactions between many elements, especially we think robust reason is as,
most voters satisfaction due to a modest standard of living in their own countries that in
fact well enough not to rise up against the political elites.
Yet there is no guarantee that democracy be always safe in the hands of any elected elites;
and once elected as state representative either through popular-vote or any other means of
manipulation (e.g. by misuse or influencing bureaucracy and media or favoring
corporate-interests, or cunning programming for vote-casting, and so on) there is no
guarantee that the guy will be intelligent enough to serve the peoples, and rather be a real
idiot and/or a school C-grader, as had indicated to the last US president Bush junior; 34)
and in such cases the masses may be fatally vulnerable to tyranny, and global humanity
no-doubt would be in danger.
Aspects of US Electoral Participation: Another problem with the theory of popular

control over public policy through federal elections is the fact that nearly half of the adult
117
125)
population, though educated, fails to vote, even in US presidential elections, and typically
the people’s participation reportedly has been very low for off-year congressional
elections (Figure 1). For instance, in 1998 election for seats in the House and Senate
reported as low as 36.4 percent of age-eligible Americans had bothered to vote that
extremely lower than any other modern democracies.
If the country is a democracy, where freedom of speech is valued above all other
freedoms, a citizen might feel obligated to speak out against the wrong or iniquitous
policies of his own government. In fact, it might be his duty as a citizen but reality is -
once people elected their leader nobody care voters, regardless rich or poor nations. In
USA, even majority people’s opinions on very sensitive issues, especially the decisions
about the foreign policy strategies were ignored during 1990s and recent past years.
Importantly also, for any international issue (say, military attack in particular country)
American government takes opinion of their own citizens rather the opinion of the
respective country’s residents!
Figure 2: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1950-2008 35)
▫ Presidential & ▪ Congressional Elections (1950-2008)

100
Participation in
90
80
In percentage (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1952
1954
1960
1962
1964
1968
1970
1972
1982
1984
1992
2000
2002
2008
1950
1956
1958
1966
1974
1976
1978
1980
1986
1988
1990
1994
1996
1998
2004
Surely, American citizens enjoy certain degree ‘‘freedom of expression’’ under their own 2006
democratic system but why a significant number of them have no interest in opinion
polls? Other side of the coin is, even most American citizens have no or less interest in
current world-affairs, and best part even ignorant about exact locations of any particular
country invaded by their own military (e.g. Somalia, Panama, Afghanistan or Iraq, etc.).
Even most highly literate citizens do not know when their civil war took place or never
heard of the Voting Rights Act, etc., and surprisingly it is not about only the ordinary
citizens but the most graduates and students of the 55 prestigious universities including
Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc! 36)
Democracy vs. Governance

Democracy neither could be the guarantee for good governance, nor even the only
treatment to cure all existing crises. As of CPI index of the Transparency International
(TI), around 70 percent countries score less than 5 out of a clean score of 10, which
reflects perceived levels of corruption among politicians and public officials. Corruption
is perceived to be rampant in now-LDCs with a score of less than 2, whereas the
countries with very low levels of perceived corruption having a score over 9 are
predominantly some European DCs such as Finland, New Zeeland, Netherlands, Sweden,
118
125)
Denmark, etc; 37) and albeit, the only exception from Asia is Singapore (Table 3), which
never recognized as a modern democratic country but became the most cleanest entity in
the globe in 2010.
Conversely, the richest representatives of two development patterns, namely USA and
Japan, both are now believed to be in modern democracy but their corruption levels and
governance situations are very doubtful, as we see the poor CPI scores. Among now-
LDCs, many of them experienced various democracies, as for instance, Bangladesh had
been under military dictators in most years of pre and post liberation periods of 1971,
albeit the country had been experienced peculiar military-democracies; and her new
reasonable democratic journey began only after 1991 parliamentary election with great
hope for economic takeoff, although it has virtually become an arena of political rivalry
between the successors of two dead patriarchs. In 2001, the country became the world’s
most corrupted one in CPI scores for the first time and remained champion for five years
(2001-2005).
Table 3: The CPI Rank and Score for Selected Countries: 2001-2010 38)
CPI Rank (CPI Score) Country

Country
[Score ranges: 10 = highly clean, 0 = highly corrupt]
Year Surveyed
USA Japan Singapore Bangladesh*1
2001 16 (7.6) 21 (7.1) 4 (9.2) 91 (0.4) 91
2006 20 (7.2) 17 (7.8) 5 (9.4) 156 (2.0)*2 163
2007 22 (7.1) 17 (7.5)*3 4 (9.3) 162 (2.0) 179
2008 18 (7.3) 18 (7.3) 4 (9.2) 147 (2.1) 180
2009 22 (7.5) 17 (7.7) 3 (9.2) 139 (2.4) 180
2010 22 (7.1) 17 (7.8) 1 (9.3) 134 (2.4) 176
Notes: CPI – Corruption Perception Index; and CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of
corruption as seen by business people and risk analysts, and score ranges between 10 (highly
clean) and 0 (highly corrupt). *1 Bangladesh was placed at the bottom of the list i.e. most
corrupted country for the fifth successive year (2001-05). *2 Most corrupted along with Chad,
Congo & Sudan, and *3 jointly with Ireland.
In LDCs, politicians increasingly pay lip service to fight against corruption. Corrupt
political elites working hand-in-hand with greedy business people and unscrupulous
investors, are putting private gain before the welfare of citizens and the economic
development of their countries. Further, the Bribe Payers Index (BPI) 39) of the TI
addresses the propensity of companies from top exporting countries to bribe in emerging
markets. The BPI 2002, for instance, revealed high levels of bribery by firms from
Russia, China, Taiwan and South Korea, closely followed by Italy, Hong Kong, Malaysia,
Japan, USA and France, etc., although many of these countries signed the Anti-Bribery
Convention of OECD, which outlaws bribery of foreign public officials. Thus, good
119
125)
governance is essential, not only in LDCs but also in international level, specifically DCs
at first need to prevent their country’s firms from bribery.
V. Discussions and Concluding Remarks
An economy’s metamorphosis from an agrarian state to an economy with a simple

industry, such as textiles, to an economy with more sophisticated manufacturing, and
eventually to service economy mirrors the history of science and technology. According
to Lewis,40) economic development in a country means a process that firstly produces
modern light industry with high productivity and continuously enlarged reproduction in a
dominant economy of traditional industry with enormous surplus laborers. Therefore, a
low productivity gaspingly then pulls out the surplus laborers from traditional industry,
and expands an economic weight of the modern industry in a country. In such regards,
apparently, there are little differences among recognized two development patterns, their
industrial restructuring and sectoral reforms processes, etc. In Japan and Asian NIEs,
however, the adjustments problems among sectors, the background features, and their
preparedness for economic takeoff were quite different than the western DCs.
Conversely, the post-independence large industrial promotion strategy in many now-
LDCs was a combination of various ostrich policies.
While many countries failed to develop particularly because of their unprepared-ness for
the economic takeoff, Japan and Asian NIEs have succeeded within much shorter periods
than the Western DCs. The most remarkable phenomenon of economic development in
last century and more specifically after World War-II has undoubtedly been the Japanese
case because of magic-like growth experiences. The geographical proximity and cultural
similarities were helpful for the Asian NIEs to follow Japan. Their rapidly rising per
capita income had been accompanied by major changes in industrial structure, however
prime lessons here are, the successful takeoff through an industrial policy requires several
conditions, principally economic, social, and political prerequisites, be met and that the
engine runs at full throttle; and to grow, economies have to face demand for their
products, often from aboard, which leads export growth often drives takeoff.
We have concentrated our focus more on economic takeoff issue of the two established
development patterns; and then expanded our concentration on democracy linkages to
development, as we cannot discuss development in particular without thinking about the
polity, the state as a political entity. Now developed nations, regardless Western or East
Asian, had been under stable non-democratic environments; and when they did overcome
their socioeconomic problems, above all educated their peoples, only then they proceeded
to the idea of modern democracy. So far, modern democracy in western world had
introduced immediate after World War II; and apparently, since then many countries
have been trying to catch-up western countries in the process of democracy and market
economy. However, the success of Japan and Asian NIEs demonstrate the effectiveness
of a more market-base development strategy; even if those governments not persist fully
in the rigid planning model, especially they did not err by going to the other extreme,
such as any early democratization. They have achieved their remarkable economic
growth and rapid development through discipline enforced by the bureaucratic system or
a political strongman or limited democracies, and gradually have been easing their way
into a more democratic style of governance.
120
125)
The idea of democracy is curious, complex and conflicting-conceptions, and the history
of democracies is puzzling. Apart from the difficulty of knowing what democracy is, as
future destination might be like, how much credence should we give to the possibility
that a given country will actually get there? The vast de-colonized countries are still
politically unstable and economically poor under so-called democratic practice for long
by keeping most people in rural-setting and without universal primary education. While
military dictatorship is inimical to democratic governance, there is no guarantee that
civilian rule cannot degenerate into blatant authoritarianism. Further, regarding good
governance, the experiences of Singapore tell us that the now-LDCs in essence need not
to be democratic. Thus, it is essentially difficult to reach any clear conclusion on, what
political system should follow to lead contemporary LDCs into good governance and
sustainable development. One may argue, why many other countries like Indonesia,
Burma (Myanmar), North Korea, Pakistan etc., having authoritarian rules remain
stagnant?
The corollary is that, regardless location or political system, where leadership in sincere
and dynamic and where institutional atmosphere conducive to sincerity and loyalty
among bureaucrats and politicians, good results can be achieved. That is the case of Japan
and Asian NIEs. The lessons of great ancient philosophers (Aristotle and Plato) regarding
effective and good governance by a “few good guys” even in modern era might have
strong validity. So far so on, the discussions here suggest that the strong disputed notion
of HDR 2002 on authoritarian regimes, as we mentioned earlier, is over simplification of
reality. Modernization need not imply Westernization in the sense of necessary
conformity to a single Western model. Such a conclusion is encouraging to most of non-
Westerners who want to make progress without losing their identity and social values.
Similarly, democratization surely need not imply Americanization. The USA and a.k.a.
its western allies actually not support democracy in now-LDCs, because towards to fulfill
their strategic objectives need “it is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling families
than a wide variety of personalities and policies bound to be thrown up by a democratic
system”.
The geographical proximity and cultural similarities of East Asia’s successful economies
raise obvious questions about whether a formula for growth can be extracted from their
experience. In short, even if there are many lessons we can learn from East Asian strategy
but copy and paste of that strategies may not be the perfect solution for now-LDCs.
Questions should ask of the political processes, practices and institutions of now-LDCs,
in particular, whether they reflect the desire of the peoples. Japan and NIEs experiences
indicate that the political stability is not the only condition but structural transformations
and convincing socioeconomic policies, collectiveness of the peoples, etc., are essential
conditions.
With due respect to democratic ideologies, the authors’ understanding is, the strategies of
western DCs, may not be the way to solve the contemporary LDCs’ problems directly.
Unfortunately, the exuberance of democracy may lead also to severe disorderly
conditions, which are inimical to development. If democracy is introduced to LDCs
before or at the beginning of overall socioeconomic development, especially basic
services provision and universal education, it usually negatively influences political
stability and bureaucratic functions. Conversely, this dilemma raises yet another
important question - what major reforms needed in democratic transitions in now-LDCs.
121
125)
Also strong question is, whether now-LDCs are ready to or be able to do so by keeping
majority of their population out of universal education and other basic needs.
The rule of law is as important to the development of a free market as it is to the

development of democracy. Free markets are very important for economic growth and the
generation of opportunities for citizens, but sound rules are equally as important. The
name of Adam Smith is often invoked in support of complete laissez-faire, but Adam
Smith advocated no such thing. Smith had emphasized the importance of institutions, rule
of law and so on. Democracy is at its weakest when the citizenry loses confidence in its
governing elites; and in recent times, political regimes of all kinds describe themselves as
democracies but it has not always been so. There is lack of political-will to develop
pattern of interpersonal inhabits as a basis for building-up solid political institution to
ensure effective governance, which is important precondition for all-round development.
For example, if bureaucracy is fragile and easily influenced by political pressure, relying
on government-led industrial or any development policy would be ineffective.
Democracy requires a strong sense of community and therefore this resolves the issue of
individual and collective rights. We are moving into a phase where the criteria of
legitimacy of governments will be based more on performance than on historic
legitimacy only. This will affect how any particular country organizes her politically. The
ruling elite’s attitude towards freedom and civil liberties is a major factor in determining
whether a democracy succeeds or fails. In nascent and fragile democracies, courts are
often weak and corrupt, and only partial media-freedom is not enough to ensure good
governance, and in fact in many places yellow journalisms yet a great threats.
In modern time, neither monarchy, nor dictators or military-juntas, nor even western
democratic-juggernaut under their double-standard policy strategies, no longer is
desirable in the LDCs. Development should not be simply as a question of so-called
democracy only that has been practicing in LDCs or nor only economic growth strategy.
The rules must rule everyone, including the rulers. It is this lack of appreciation for the
value of rules and institutions that now threatens most countries, like Bangladesh with
nascent and fragile democracies. People are mostly poor not because of mind-set created
by established development thinking only but for the complex number of reasons. It is
worth emphasizing that poverty is the central of many interrelated problems, thus need an
integrated approach to curb poverty as well as to prolong development. As Todaro
stated,41) development must be conceived of as a multidimensional process involving
major changes in social structures, popular attitudes, and national institutions, as well as
the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of
absolute poverty. Most importantly, all levels participation in economic activity that
presupposes the existence of some reasonable form of democracy and rule of law. But the
existing distortions within the country in many societies make it impossible to move
toward achieving democratic objectives.
So far, there is lack of political-will to develop pattern of interpersonal inhabits as a basis

for building-up solid political institutions including the people’s organizations to ensure
effective governance, an important precondition for all-round development. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, we believe that only a strong national government regardless
to any particular political system, with power to exercise its will directly on the people,
would be able to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
122
125)
socio-economic security, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
humanity and liberty.
References and End Notes

1). Joseph E. Stiglitz (1997): The Role of Government in Economic Development, Keynote
Address, In M. Buruno and B. Pleskovic (eds.), Annual World Bank (WB) Conference on
Development Economics 1996, WB (1/1997): pp11-23. Also J. E. Stiglitz (1996): Some
Lessons from the East Asian Miracle, The World Bank Res. Observer, 11(2) (Aug.).
2). See, Human Development Report (HDR: 2002): Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented
World, UNDP.
3). For detail, please refers to - W.W. Rostow (1960): The Stages of Economic Growth– A Non-
Communist Manifesto, Cambridge Univ. Press; S. Kuznets (1971): The Economic Growth
of Nations, Harvard Univ. Press; Clifford Geertz (1963): Agricultural Involution– the
Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia, California Univ. Press (Barkeley); S. Ishikawa
(1967): Economic Development in Asian Perspective, Kinokyniwa Bookstore (Tokyo);
4). Mobilized from M. Ashraf Hossain (2001): Industrial Revolution, Development Patterns
and Developed Nations, Discussion Paper, No. 4, Lecture Series of Postgraduate Seminar,
The Graduate School of Social & Cultural Studies, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
(March).
5). Please consult with: Y. Miyakawa (2001): Local Initiatives in Regional Development and
Global Transformation within the Japanese Orbit, In J.E. Nickum & K. Oya (eds.):
Environmental Management, Poverty Reduction, and Sustainable Regional Development,
New Development Paradigms-Vol. 4, (Greenwood Press/Westport in cooperation with
UNCRD). Also see, H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): Nation-Building and Regional Development -
The Japanese Experience, Maruzen Asia (Published for & on behalf of UNCRD). See also,
Yujiro Hayami (1980): A Century of Agricultural Growth in Japan, University of Tokyo
Press, Japan.; Yujiro Hayami, W. R. Vernon, and M. S. Herman (1979/eds.): Agricultural
Growth in Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines, University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu. Lee & D.W. Culver (1985): Agricultural Development in Three Asian
Countries– A Comparative Analysis, Agricultural Economics Research, 37(1): pp.9-13;
and C. Lee & D.W. Culver (1985): Agricultural Development in Three Asian Countries – A
Comparative Analysis, Agricultural Economics Research, 37(1): pp.9-13.
6). See, United Nations Statistical Yearbooks, various years of late-1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
7). YKMF (1981/ed.: Yono Kotaro Memorial Foundation): Suji-de-miru Nippon-no-hyakunen
(100 years of Japan: Facts and Figures). Also, YKMF (1996/ed): Sekai-kokusai-zue
(World Census Compendium) (in Japanese). Also, H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): Ibid (Ref.# 5).
8). As of various local and international organizations, around 40-45% people are yet very
poor, those daily incomes fall below US$1 in PPP scale. As of World Fact Book–
Bangladesh estimate, around 40 percent Bangladeshis are yet below the poverty line
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html> (15.5.2011).
9). W.W. Rostow (1960); Clifford Geertz (1963); and S. Ishikawa (1967): Ibid (Ref.# 3)
10). Kuznets (1971): op. cit. (Ref.# 3).
11). Modified from M. Ashraf Hossain (1999): People’s Activities, Resources Management and
the Grassroots Institutional Paradigm– Evidence from Modus Operandi of the Grameen
Bank, Doctoral Dissertation, Nagoya University (Mar.: Nagoya, Japan).
12). M. Ashraf Hossain and N. H. Sakib (2009): Area Planning and Land Management in Japan
- The Development Tools and the Central-Local Roles, Journal of Administrative Studies,
No.2, June, Jahangirnagar University, Savar: pp115-130.
123
125)
13). H. Takeya (1991): Industrial Restructuring and Agricultural Organization in Japan,

International Review of Economics and Business, Vol. XXXVIII, No.12 (Dec.), Milano.
Also, Y. Miyakawa (2001) & H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): Ibid (Ref.# 5).
14). Clifford Geertz (1963): op. cit. (Ref.# 3).
15). M. R. Auty (1995): Patterns of Development- Resources, Policy and Economic Growth,
London: Edward Arnold.
16). Stiglitz (1997): op. cit. (Ref. #1)
17). T. Ito (1997): What Can Developing Countries Learn from East Asia’s Economic Growth?
In B. Pleskovic & J. E. Stiglitz, (ed.): Annual World Bank Conference on Development
Economics 1997, World Bank.
18). HDR 2002 (UNDP): op. cit. (Ref. # 2).
19). M. Ashraf Hossain (2001): op. cit. (Ref. # 4).
20). To bridging the technological gap with Western countries, beside educational infrastructure
development and the compulsory universal education, some remarkable initiatives also had
taken; and some of such initiatives, for example, were-- Sending Japanese students overseas
for higher study and processional/technical training or so on; Inviting overseas
professionals and experts at higher educational institutions and major projects; and Import
of Western technologies those either directly transferred to individual entrepreneurs and/or
established model factories and then transferred to the private sector. Please refers to: Y.
Miyakawa (2001), and H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): op. cit. (Ref. #5).
21). E.O. Reischauer (1993): Japan– the History of a Nation, 3rd Edition, Charles E. Tuttle Co.
(Tokyo). Also, Pictorial Encyclopedia of Japanese Culture – The Soul and Heritage of
Japan, (1987), Published by Gakken Co. Ltd. (Tokyo).
22). Reporters Without Borders (RWB) is a France-based intl. NGO was founded in 1985 that
advocates freedom of the press
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders> (Accessed: 20.04.2011).
23). CPI Annual Report 2010, Transparency International <http://www.transparency.org>.
24). Modified from, M. Ashraf Hossain (1999): op. cit. (Ref. #11).
25). For instance, Chinese big domestic market enormously is a plus point for economic
involution that has been attracting foreign investors in one way and others. Further, one
basic difference between China & former Soviet Union (USSR) or its eastern blocks or now
North Korea, China has had robust business-links even with her biggest political-rival, the
USA.
26). For some understandings on conventional Arms Transfers to the LDCs and the related
stories, please refer to Stockholm Intl. Peace Res. Institute (2004): Yearbook 2004-
Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford Univ. Press); Control Arms
Campaign CAC (2003): The Arms Bazaar, Shattered Lives (Chapter 4), In Control Arms
Campaign, Oct. 2003. See, Richard F. Grimmett (2002 & 2010): CRS Report for
Congress on “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations: 2002-2009”, The
US Congressional Research Service.
27). The UN was created after World War-II with leading efforts by the America and her key
allies in the name of preserving world peace through international cooperation and
collective security! The UN and all its agencies and project-programs funds spend about
$1.70 for each of the world’s inhabitants, of which handsome portion spend for staff salary,
their family benefits and for UN missions, etc. Yet, the UN’s entire budget is just a tiny
fraction of the world’s military expenditure, around 1.5%. See, Global Policy Forum
(2003): UN Financial Crisis, Global Policy Forum, 12/2003. Also In
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/>
124
125)
28). Richard F. Grimmett (2010): op. cit. (Ref. #26).

29). Jordan, for example, received large-scale U.S. support in the 1970s and 1980s despite
widespread repression and authoritarian rule; when it opened up its political system in the
early 1990s, the U.S. substantially reduced support, and for a time, suspended foreign aid.
Surprisingly, aid to Yemen was cut off within months of the newly unified country’s first
democratic election in 1990! 　
30). An important corollary to 'human rights, freedom and justice' is due process and in an ideal
world all citizens of all countries would have all the rights. But we do not live in an ideal
world and even do not know of a single system that would ensure all rights for everyone. It
seems that we can only have few and sacrifice the rest – indeed it is a trade off, especially
western human rights concept has been tried to equated with the fundamental rights and
freedom, which may not be fit with many other societies or surely would not matched with
other cultures (e.g. in India).
31). Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler (1975): The Irony of Democracy – An Uncommon
Introduction to American Politics, 3rd Ed., Duxbury Press, Wadsworth Publishing Co.
(Belmont, California).
32) For detail of “How a President Is Nominated and Elected” and for “Electoral College” and
related links, see <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781446.html> (Accessed: 29.04
2011).
33). US National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections
<http://www.infoplease.com/pa/A0781453. html> (Retrieved: 29.04.2011).
34). See, Michael Moore (2002): Stupid White Men - and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of
the Nation, Penguin Books (Victoria: Penguin Group Australia Ltd).
35). Mobilized from: op. cit. (Ref. # 33).
36). A group of total 556 seniors and students were giver a multiple-choice test consisting of 34
questions with wide range of choices that were described as high school level but these top
students could only answer 53% of them correctly. A whopping 40% of them did not know
when the Civil War took place and 70% had never heard of the Voting Rights Act!
However, two questions they scored highest on, were: (a) Who is Snoop Doggy Dog?
(Snoop & fellow rappers have much to say about America’s social ills!), and (b) who are
Beavis and Butt-head? (Which represented some of the best American satire of the 1990s) –
as of them 98% and 99% respectively knew right answer! For some interesting realities and
related views, please refer to Moore (2002): op. cit. (Ref. # 34).
37). Transparency Intl. Reports: 2001-10 <http://www.transparency.org>(Retrieved:
21.4.2011).
38). Mobilized from: Ibid.
39). The Bribe Payers Index 2002, Transparency Intl. (Berlin) <.http://www.transparency.org>
(Retrieved: 21.4.2009).
40). See, W. A. Lewis (1954): Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour, Vol.
2, Manchester School of Social Studies. Also, W. A. Lewis (1978): The Evolution of the
International Economic Order, Princeton.
41). M. P. Todaro (1989): Economic Development in the Third World, New York: Longman.
125

Paper I Development Governance and Irony of Democracy Ashraf &amp; Nurulhuda Sakib

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Paper I Development Governance and Irony of Democracy Ashraf &amp; Nurulhuda Sakib

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No.

30, June 2011 (pp103-

Development, Governance and Irony of Democracy

II. Movement of Nations toward Development and Democracy

Development Patterns, Developed Nations and LDCs

IR Stages Machinery Invents and Patents / Machinery-based Services

Communication, Electricity & Chemicals Era: e.g. Samuel F. B. Morse invents

Economic Takeoff of Nations toward Development

Initial Conditions and Economic Takeoff: Typically an economy’s metamorphosis

Table 2: Checklists of Western and East Asian Development Strategies 11)

At a Glance Image: Constitutional government;At a Glance Image: Authoritarian rules (e.g.

Political stability, Sustained economic growth; Military-juntas/ dictatorship, Aristocracy or

arms trade), etc. system & human-rights situations improved, etc.

The post-independence large industrial promotion strategy in many LDCs was a

Economic Development and Popular Metaphors: For economic development, various

East Asian Authoritarianism and Nation-Building in Briefs 19)

Singapore: The politics of Singapore take place in a framework of a parliamentary

Economic Development and Transitions into Modern Democracy

Figure 1: Movement of Nations toward to Development and Modern Democracy

III. Democracy, Governance, and Development: The Brief Historical Overviews

Limited Democracy and Development: In late 18th Century, some-form of democratic

Democratic Juggernauts and Contemporary LDCs: Prior socioeconomic

However, the western democratic-juggernaut, basically the pushing for early-

The US Democracy – At a Glance

Aspects of US Electoral Participation: Another problem with the theory of popular

Figure 2: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1950-2008 35)

▫ Presidential & ▪ Congressional Elections (1950-2008)

Democracy vs. Governance

CPI Rank (CPI Score) Country

2006 20 (7.2) 17 (7.8) 5 (9.4) 156 (2.0)*2 163

2007 22 (7.1) 17 (7.5)*3 4 (9.3) 162 (2.0) 179

2008 18 (7.3) 18 (7.3) 4 (9.2) 147 (2.1) 180

2009 22 (7.5) 17 (7.7) 3 (9.2) 139 (2.4) 180

2010 22 (7.1) 17 (7.8) 1 (9.3) 134 (2.4) 176

V. Discussions and Concluding Remarks

An economy’s metamorphosis from an agrarian state to an economy with a simple

The rule of law is as important to the development of a free market as it is to the

So far, there is lack of political-will to develop pattern of interpersonal inhabits as a basis

References and End Notes

13). H. Takeya (1991): Industrial Restructuring and Agricultural Organization in Japan,

28). Richard F. Grimmett (2010): op. cit. (Ref. #26).

Вам также может понравиться

Paper I Development Governance and Irony of Democracy Ashraf & Nurulhuda Sakib

Paper I Development Governance and Irony of Democracy Ashraf & Nurulhuda Sakib