Many people think that democracy is a promising form of nation since it might guarantee the individual rights-based freedom. As the term suggests, democracy is a kind of government ruled by people which potentially provides a vast chance for them to organize the nation by themselves without any coercion and intimidation as reflected in aristocratic model that threatens their individual independency. To establish democracy, there are many factors stimulating its emergence. One of them is economic development which some scholars strongly believe its positive relationship to democracy.
In my view, adopting Przeworski's categorization, we may see two types of relationship between economic development and democracy.[1] The first category is that economic development might lead to the existence of democracy called "endogenous view" whilst the second one is that economic development will maintain democracy called "exogenous view". The former type will suggest that without economic development democracy will never come into being since economic development becomes the main cause of its emergence. Nevertheless, the latter view will consider economic development just as a sustaining factor to keep democracy surviving. Therefore, it is necessary to find the main cause of democracy such as international environment which strongly introduces the idea of democracy. However, I am not afraid to add that it is possible to see the inverse relationship between both. Democracy does not always become the result of that process but it may be the cause of economic development. Furthermore, I suspect that not only does democracy cause the economic growth, but also the other form of government may be the triggering aspect of economic development.
Dealing with this problem, we may consider an outstanding writer, Seymour Martin Lipset who wrote a good article "Economic Development and Democracy" in his book entitled "Political Man: the Social Basis of Politics" in 1981. The article basically delineates the close relationship between economic development and democracy. This writing emphasizes at most the economic growth as a causing factor of democracy as Lipset says, "the more well to do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy"[2]. Lipset in his project employs four indicators of economic development, i.e., wealth, industrialization, urbanization and education. He proudly shows the figures of each indices by providing some numbers indicating that the more democratic the country the higher the per capita income will be such as the average per capita income in more democratic countries in Europe was $695 compared to less democracies which have only $308. Additionally, in terms of industrialization, Lipset points out that economic development can be measured from the percentage of employed males in agriculture which indicates that the average percentage was 21 in more democratic European countries and 41 in less democratic.[3] However, the figure is not satisfying data since he seems to generalizes the measurement without determining a certain nation. For example, it is probably easy to measure the wealth by using per capita income but why does he not mention the name of democratic European countries as well as the less democratic? It will be better for him to help the readers understand fully his arguments by showing the detailed data despite his pre-supposition that the readers already have had enough information of that categorization. Some people will possible to condemn him that he just feels reluctant to tell the truth so that people will be hard to verify his findings.
Furthermore, one indicator of economic development emphasized much by Lipset in his article is education. He says that "the higher the education level of a nation's population, the better the chances for democracy".[4] It is intelligible that Education has a big role in increasing the economic development since it can broaden one's view and develop his understanding and tolerance. Through education the possibility for people to affiliate to extremist groups is much lesser.[5] Nevertheless, that claim is considered oversimplifying the problem. I am probably of the opinion that education will potentially enlighten people and make them aware of the worldly life but we cannot avoid the fact that it much depends on the way and kind of education. If the education teaches them, say, a kind of nationalism and pluralism, it possibly helps democracy to rise. However, if the education spreads the idea of fundamentalism and radicalism, the reality will be the inverse. We may notice that Jamaah Islamiyah (Islamic Group) which is claimed by
To avoid the negative impact of education, we may take Husserl's notion of education.[7] This fenomenologist basically opposes the common education which apply somewhat "imperialistic". It means that the teachers just explain the materials based on the ordered curriculum without criticism. On the other hand, the students should understand or even memorize the text given by the regime. Therefore, this kind of learning will result in inadequate generation with limited knowledge. The preferred form of education related to Husserl's notion, then, will be an active learning process and student-oriented curriculum. Not only do the teachers explain the materials in front of the class constantly, but the students should actively participate in that process. Also, the teachers should adopt some materials dealing with the needs of the learners. In this kind of education, conscious and enlightened individuals would be easily implemented. They will be open minded and tolerant generation resulting in the emergence of democracy.
Other interesting point offered by Lipset is the relation berween democracy and the existence of communist.[8] It is really the indication that democracy is not only the result of economic development, but also possible to become the cause of economic growth. What I comprehend from his idea is that in the wealthiest countries such as the
Inspite of the positive correlation of economic development to democracy as the main idea of Lipset, we might challenge this notion by see some inverse realities.
Besides my arguments above, I appreciate Amartya Sen's challenge when critizing Lee Kwan Yew's defense of Authoritarianism in his country.[10] Yew asserts that authoritarian government is a suitable for encouraging economic development. It is comprehensible since the authoritative leader might control the economic activities in the country. The government may have a huge power to stabilize its region including the economic development. However, Sen denies this way of thinking stating that economic development in Singapore is not the result of authoritarianism but it is just coincidence that this form of government occurs in a country with a rapid economic growth or vice versa. Hence, economic development is nothing to do with authoritarianism. However, I am still of the opinion that Sen's consideration about a matter of coincidence is not really valid since we can overlook the important rule of the regime. The government of course has the authority to shape whatever the country. So, we might think that by applying a variety of its policy, Authoritarian Singapore can reach the high level of economy in the present day.
In conclusion, I really agree that there are two types of relationship between economic development and democracy. The first category is endogenous view whereas the second one is exogenous view. Endogenous view suggests that economic development becomes the main cause of its emergence whilst the latter considers economic development just as a sustaining factor to keep democracy alive. The other cause will be possible to stimulate democracy such as international relationship. However, I prefer to say that democracy is possible to become the cause of economic development, not always the result of economic development. Also, economic development can be the result of other form of government such as authoritarian states. Therefore, to establish democracy, it is understandable that economic development becomes the focus cause for democracy, but we should not overlook the rules of other causes besides economic development to stimulate the emergence of democracy. Economic development, then, will go hand in hand with other factors to support democracy.
[1] Adam Przeworski (et.al.), "Economic Development and Political Regimes", Democracy and Development:Political Institutions and Well-being in the World 1950-1990,
[2] Seymour Martin Lipset, "Economic Development of Democracy", in Political Man: The social Basis of Politics,
[3] Lipset, Economic Development…, p. 57
[4] Lipset, Economic Development…, p. 57
[5] Lipset, Economic Development…, p. 58
[6] Lipset, Economic Development…, p. 58
[7] Husserl, Kaizo IV: Renewal and Science, Japanese Journal, p. 31-32
[8] Lipset, Economic Development…, p. 59
[9] Leo Suryadinata, Political Culture and Indonesian Democracy, http://www.unu.edu /unupress/asian-values.html,p.1-3
[10] Amartya Sen, Human Right and Asian Values, What Lee Kwan Yew and Le Peng don't understand about
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar