Democracy_and_Standard_of_Living

Democracy is good for improving the standards of living in South Asia! Does this proposition sound plausible' Democracy is a form of government characterised by sovereignty of all people, where each person, whether rich or poor, has one vote to determine who governs.[1] This definition implies that the government, in order to remain in power, will listen to the voices of the majority and address their specific needs and wants. How is it then that a largely democratic South Asia is home to half the world’s poor'[2] This essay will argue that democracy is good for improving the standards of living in South Asia. I will focus on the three largest countries in South Asia, namely India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The essay will aim to prove that such widespread poverty and low standard of living is not a result of democracy but rather of poor policies, military interference and a lack of competent political leaders. It is necessary to first evaluate different indicators by which to measure the standard of living in country. One common indicator used is real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) uses this in its calculation of the Human Development Index (HDI).[3] This measures the annual economic output of a country per person, adjusted for inflation. However, this indicator does not take into account income inequality. In India, for example, the richest 10% in terms of income are responsible for over 30% of total income.[4] This would result in an inflated figure for the Indian majority. In measuring the standard of living, a more accurate indicator would be the child mortality rate. This is a measure of the number of deaths before the age of five per 1,000 children. Factors associated with this number include access to clean water, food and basic healthcare. Education levels are also implicitly related to child mortality rate as mothers, when equipped with information on how to improve living conditions, can increase her child’s likelihood of survival. Another indicator is the percentage of the population living below the poverty line. It is obvious that the poor have a lower standard of living compared to the rich. Therefore, the higher the percentage of population living in poverty, the lower the country’s standard of living. For the purposes of this essay, both child mortality rates and poverty will be used as indicators of the standard of living. India has had more than sixty years of almost uninterrupted democracy. However, its child mortality rate was 52 in 2007 which corresponded to the 47th highest rate in a UNICEF report out of 196 countries.[5] That same year, a quarter of the population was living under the poverty line.[6] These statistics appear to suggest that democracy has not helped improve the standards of living. However, there is enough evidence to prove that poor government policies are to blame, rather than the form of government. India’s development history in terms of government economic policies could be categorised into two broad phases. The first phase was from 1947 to 1975 when economic policies leaned heavily towards state control. The other phase was from 1975 till present which saw a gradual shift from the public to private sector. A study was done in 2005 which showed that although there was positive GDP growth for both phases, the percentage of population under the poverty line grew an average of 0.2% per annum during the first phase and decreased by an average of 0.8% per annum during the second phase.[7] The difference was brought about mainly by deregulation of the private sector and market reforms, not by the form of government. The same report shows that India’s ranking in terms of education performance is significantly worse than relative ranking of per capita income. The report suggests that this could be traced to the failure of the government to provide adequate quantity and quality public goods such as education.[8] The poor spend much of their funds on health, but waste it on unqualified medical practitioners like spirit healers and witchdoctors. Basic education on health issues can help the poor spend their funds more wisely. Pakistan had a child mortality rate of 90 in 2007, ranking it 43th in the UNICEF report. They also have close to a quarter of the population below the poverty line.[9] Pakistan has had periods of military rule interspersed with democracy since 1947. Child mortality rates have dropped from 212 in 1960 at a relatively even rate.[10] However GDP information shows certain trends relative to the form of government. It must be mentioned that although GDP growth in itself does not directly imply better standards of living, it does provide the government the ability to spend on social reforms and programs that may improve the lives of its citizens. Based on GDP figures, the periods of military rule under General Ayub Khan, General Zia and General Musharraf produced GDP growth of over 5%. Compared to the periods of democratic reign which produced under 5% GDP growth, it seems to show that democracy was a failure at economic growth.[11] One commonality among the periods of military rule is the presence of foreign aid. It was an interesting coincidence that when the government was run by the military, American funds were pouring into the country. If we subtract the American factor, there is no clear conclusion that military rule resulted in better growth rates. One of the key attributes of democracy is as mentioned earlier is the sovereignty of the people. In Pakistan, however, power seemed to be dominated by the military. Even during the civilian-ruled periods, the military still had a stronghold on politics and therefore democracy was not given a chance to take root and bear fruits. In his book, Maya Chadda writes that under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1991-1992, the country experienced promising growth rates better than the previous years as a result of positive policies. In February 1993, the sudden death of Chief Of Army Staff (COAS) led to a dispute between PM Sharif and the then President Ghulam Ishak Khan on who to install as the next COAS. The President ended up by-passing six senior officers and the PM’s office and appointed his chosen COAS. Observers say this move was critical to ensure the President’s success at the next elections. This underlines the influence of the COAS and to a larger extent the military on politics.[12] Ultimately, the government, in order to ensure its continuity would have to find favour in the eyes of the military. This would result in a bias toward the demands of the military rather than that of the people. The losers here would be the people, whose needs and claims for better living conditions would be constantly drowned out. In Bangladesh, politics brings to mind two women. Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of the founding father of Bangladesh and Khalida Zia, the widow of General Ziaur Rahman have alternated in power for the most part since 1991. These two ladies are driven by personal goals of whose father or husband played a bigger role in the independence of Bangladesh. The lack of competence in leadership for both these women is shown by various statistics. Bangladesh ranked 147 out of 180 on the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index and was last of all South Asian countries.[13] Corruption is usually the gain of some people at the unfair expense of others. The group of people hardest hit would be the poor. As of 2004, 45% of its population lived under the poverty line.[14] In a democracy, elections allow the people to assess the performance of the existing ruling party and choose if they would have the party re-elected. An opposition party could therefore be elected in on grounds of incompetence of the ruling party. In Bangladesh, this is not seen because of the traditional authority these two ladies have in their respective political parties. The good news is that democracy can outlast human lifespan. In the opposite of a democracy, an authoritarian rule, even if the ruler does not improve the lives of his people, there is no avenue for redress. Furthermore, authoritarian leaders are more likely to continue in a traditional form of authority, choosing their successors which are most likely made in the same mould as they are, and therefore eliminating possible change in the future. Amartya Sen states that no substantial famine had ever occurred in a democratic country. This stems from the basis that in order to stay in power, the government must make an effort to address an impending famine since it has to face elections.[15] The underlying implication is that democracy as a system helps to address the needs and wants of the majority through this feedback and is therefore essential to improving living standards. Once these countries in South Asia address the problems mentioned above, the closer they will come to the ideal democracy, and the better the standard of living will be. Bibliography Central Intelligence Agency (Washington, DC, USA) “The World Factbook – India”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. Central Intelligence Agency (Washington, DC, USA) “The World Factbook – Pakistan”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. Central Intelligence Agency (Washington, DC, USA) “The World Factbook – Bangladesh”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. Chadda, Maya. Building Democracy in South Asia: India, Nepal, Pakistan (Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), pp. 77-79. Ranney, Austin. Governing: An introduction to political science (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996), p.95. Sen, Amartya. “Democracy as a Universal Value”, Journal of Democracy 10.3 (July 1999) Transparency International (Berlin, Germany) “2008 Corruption Perceptions Index”. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table. Accessed 9 October 2009. United Nations Children’s Fund “The state of the world’s children 2009”, http://www.unicef.org/sowc09/docs/SOWC09_Table_1.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2009. United Nations Development Programme (New York, USA) “Human Development Reports”. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/indices/hdi/question,68,en.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. Virmani, Arvind. Policy regimes, growth and poverty in India: Lessons of government failure and entrepreneurial success! (New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, 2005), pp. 9-11 World Bank Group, The. “Selected WDI data set”, http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/member.do'method=getMembers&userid=1&queryId=135. Accessed 9 October 2009. World Bank Group, The. (Washington, DC, USA) “South Asia”, http://www.worldbank.org/sar. Accessed 4 October 2009. ----------------------- [1] Austin Ranney, Governing: An introduction to political science (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996), p.95. [2] The World Bank Group (Washington, DC, USA) “South Asia”, http://www.worldbank.org/sar. Accessed 4 October 2009. [3] United Nations Development Programme (New York, USA) “Human Development Reports”. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/indices/hdi/question,68,en.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. [4] Central Intelligence Agency (Washington, DC, USA) “The World Factbook – India”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. [5] United Nations Children’s Fund “The state of the world’s children 2009”, http://www.unicef.org/sowc09/docs/SOWC09_Table_1.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2009. [6] CIA “The World Factbook – India”, Accessed 4 October 2009. [7] Arvind Virmani, Policy regimes, growth and poverty in India: Lessons of government failure and entrepreneurial success! (New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, 2005), pp. 9-11 [8] Ibid. p. 78 [9] CIA (Washington, DC, USA) “The World Factbook – Pakistan”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. [10] The World Bank Group “Selected WDI data set”, http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/member.do'method=getMembers&userid=1&queryId=135. Accessed 9 October 2009. [11] Ibid. [12] Maya Chadda, Building Democracy in South Asia: India, Nepal, Pakistan (Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), pp. 77-79. [13] Transparency International (Berlin, Germany) “2008 Corruption Perceptions Index”. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table. Accessed 9 October 2009. [14] CIA (Washington, DC, USA) “The World Factbook – Bangladesh”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html. Accessed 4 October 2009. [15] Amartya Sen, “Democracy as a Universal Value”, Journal of Democracy 10.3 (July 1999)