Enemies of development & democracy
SOCIOLOGIST Seymour Martin Lipset’s influential paper in 1959 initially established the connection between the level of development and the likelihood of a country becoming democratic. Lipset’s paper in the American Political Science Review was “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Development.” It was his view that higher development would bring greater democratic gains.

And this connection was not merely between per capita income and democracy; it was more than that, as he intended development to refer to industrialization, urbanization, wealth, and education; part of his contribution to modernization theory that extends well beyond narrow economics. Nonetheless, it is unfortunate today that invariably some discussants on Guyana’s progress would constantly cite solely per capita income, GDP, etc., as real indicators of a country’s development.

He argued that a government can sustain its democratic gains mainly through the people’s perception of its legitimacy; and consolidation of democracy can happen through nonstop development vis-à-vis modernization (Figure 1); a case where there is greater human capital, where people have economic and political rights, and where they take on new norms and values consistent with developing democratic stability.

Lipset’s correlation between development and democracy engaged quite a number of researchers over the years. Wucherpfennig & Deutsch indicated that the following early studies showed a positive correlation between development and democracy: “Lipset 1959; Cutright 1963; McCrone & Cnudde 1967; Olsen 1968; Jackman 1973; Coulter 1975; Bollen 1979, 1980, 1983, 1993; Bollen & Jackman 1985, 1989, 1995; Muller 1988, 1995a, 1995b; Diamond 1992; Inglehart 1988, 1997; Muller & Seligson 1994; Burckhart & Lewis-Beck 1994, Leblang 1997; Vanhanen 1984, 1990, 1997; Barro 1999), others do not (e.g., Arat 1988; Sirowy & Inkeles 1990; Hadenius 1992).”

Przeworski and others (2000), 40 years after Lipset’s paper on this correlation, asked this question: would development produce democracy, and if it does, would it be able to sustain it? And found that we can sustain and consolidate democracy with development, but that development does not engender democracy. Nevertheless, Wucherpfennig & Deutsch concluded that more recent studies (Epstein et al 2006; Inglehart & Welzel 2005; Boix & Stokes 2003; Geddes 1999;) confirmed Lipset’s findings that development generates democracy, and development also sustains democracy.

Lipset notes that democracy does not come easy and it is not trouble-free to sustain. And this production and maintenance of democracy will become a reality only through certain changing social and economic conditions via the modernization theory.

Nevertheless, Lipset’s ‘Kuznets curve’, part of the parameters of modernization theory, still debatable, recognizes that when a less developed country (LDC) shows increased growth and industrializes, income inequality worsens; however as the economy improves, incomes become more equitable. Nonetheless, political instability could halt this development pattern. And it is clear that Lipset’s work has resonance for Guyana.

In 1992, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administration inherited a harsh legacy from the previous authoritarian People’s National Congress (PNC) regime; today, the PPP/C faces challenges, some superficial, in its efforts to consolidate democracy in Guyana because of some lingering pre-1992 autocratic traditions, beliefs, and values, unsuited to a functioning democracy; another humbug is some commentators’ constant distortions of Guyana’s development, and their relentless efforts to undermine the legitimacy of this PPP/C Government; their sought-after end product, presumably, is political instability.

Political instability slows down development and negatively impacts consolidation of democracy; this is what enemies of democracy would cherish. Readers may remember the 2001 election violence and its aftermath, even as economic development was emerging.

Election violence, different forms of domestic terrorism, and the daily distorters’ propaganda are efforts to imprint a picture of instability on the local and international image of Guyana. However, President Bharrat Jagdeo’s poignant international interventions and his ebullient international status today would have the effect of eliminating the distortionists’ overseas propaganda.

And the people who negatively spew remarks on Guyana’s development must know about the persisting impact of societal violence on development and democracy. These people would remember the work of the Assistance Assessment Committee circa 2001; it interviewed 342 persons who suffered the following: loss of income; physical injuries; emotional trauma; muggings; armed robbery; arson to private canfields; damage to property especially vehicles; theft; destruction of property resulting from arson/looting, and arson arising from damage to building, including the Regent Street, Georgetown, fire.

Guyana is experiencing development, and we should critically engage each other in conversations on the matter. For me, I would welcome critics or maybe distorters to publicly haggle about policy issues; but in that public haggling, they must factor in their distortions and societal violence into the equation of development.

And those who spew their propaganda to distort this Government’s development record, and to undermine the Government’s legitimacy, may recognize that they are traversing a curve of failure; as rising development alleviates conflicts, infuses greater receptiveness, provides greater rewards for moderation, and rebukes extremism. And addictive distorters really are enemies of development and democracy.
(Feedback: pmperspectives@aol.com themisirpost.wordpress.com)