Undue significance of Democracy

Sen claims that ‘there is rather little general evidence that authoritarian governance and the suppression of political and civil rights are really beneficial in encouraging economic development. The statistical picture is much more complicated.’ (150) Because authoritarianism has no conclusive advantage over democracy in generating economic growth, and because political liberty and freedom have ‘importance of their own, the case for them remains unaffected.’ (150) He goes on to make the claim that ‘a person with high income but no opportunity of political participation is not “poor” in the usual sense, but is clearly poor in terms of an important freedom.’ (94) This is largely where I disagree with Sen as he gives democracy undue importance and value.

The Lee thesis claims that democracy hampers economic growth and freedom. It is also argued that there is a choice to be made between political freedoms and economic prosperity – most will choose the latter and hence ‘the majority view would tend to reject democracy’ (148). Sen dismisses the Lee thesis on the basis that it is ‘based on very selective and limited information’ (149) and so concludes that there is no definitive evidence that political freedoms hamper economic growth. Sen goes on to say that there is little evidence that ‘poor people in general do not care about civil and political rights,’ (151) In fact he claims that there is stronger evidence of the contrary as evidenced by the struggle for democratic freedoms in nations such as South Korea, Thailand, Bangladesh and Pakistan. However, I would argue that there is also evidence to support the claim that poor people are indifferent when it comes to political liberties. The mass immigration from democratic nations (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, The Philippines) into nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia suggests that these people value economic development over political freedoms – they leave their homes, their families, their political freedoms behind in order to move to an autocratic nation to work and earn money to support their families back home. Therefore, I think there is some substance to the claim that poor people would prefer economic progress to political liberties.

Furthermore, despite the fact that there may be no advantage to autocratic government in encouraging greater economic growth, there are other reasons to reject democracy and the political liberties that come with it. For example, ‘Asian’ or ‘Arab’ values might reject the idea of democracy. Sen handles this objection by showing that these traditions value tolerance and freedoms, and that most claims that ‘Asian values’ are incompatible with democracy come from the ruling class and not the people. However, Sen provides no evidence that the people in these Asian nations want democracy or reject autocratic rule. Instead, he simply shows that there is room for democracy in Asian tradition; I do not think this is sufficient. Also, there are traditions such as Islam, which though it preaches tolerance and supports certain freedoms, might not be compatible with democracy – the people don’t make law, God does. I think Sen needs to go a lot further in showing that Democracy is in fact important to poor people.