Is democracy the best form of government for economic prosperity?
Atticus D
With China’s rise, many assume democracy is irrelevant or cumbersome in chasing economic prosperity. Nevertheless, I believe democracy is vital. By democracy, I refer to the system of representatives, elected by the popular will, in a nation characterized by freedoms of speech, the press, religion and identity. At the same time, democracy must be ‘strong’, that is, uncorrupted, and aim to consistently represent the true will of the people. When I refer to economic prosperity, I mean not just growth but decreased inequality: it is vital to acknowledge the flaws in an unequal ‘prosperity’. When you create a system where wealth is growing, this is not sustainable, if new wealth simply proliferates in the hands of the richest in society. The rich are less likely to spend their new wealth, as their basic needs and wants are already met, and this curtails economic growth. Furthermore, on a political level, such divides in society will disrupt the nation’s functioning. In all political systems, the differences in power will create cycles of inequality, as increased resources allow the richest in society a greater degree of influence, be it through monopolization or heavy political marketing: this allows them to affect the outcomes of political decisions increasingly, creating changes that suit them and their business interests. This then leads to them having more money, and hence more power. Therefore, from these two reasons, prosperity is only truly prosperous, and lasting, if it can spread wealth across all in society. While the pathway to economic prosperity faces numerous challenges, democracy is the most effective route to achieve this. In a country of any development level, only through continuously and quickly responding to issues that face an economy will it be able to create prosperity. Certainly, in the short- term, I would argue that democratic systems are better suited to making the ideal decisions for ensuring true prosperity than centralized power. The first reason for this is that, in democratic systems, incentives are aligned with the goals of prosperity, whereas with authoritarian regimes, that is not the case. As I have said, democracy aligns with prosperity, as the population, assuming a modern level of suffrage, will want a more equal spread of wealth as it will lead to an increase in the material conditions and wealth. Conversely, in systems where power is in the hands of the few, they – the few – are incentivized to make decisions that not only continue their own power, but also generally increase their own wealth to provide them and their close circles with increased opulence. It is worth making clear that in general, in terms of governmental decisions, most decisions to enrich the few will come at the cost of enriching the many: control and taxes over the richest corporations and individuals in society will be weakened, causing decreased government protection of the most economically vulnerable, decreased spending power, and increased power of corporations who are encouraged by profit to exploit. This highlights that only in systems where power is spread across the people, do you get decisions that enhance the wealth of all people, and therefore true prosperity.
The anti-democratic argument has two parts: (a) voters generally act against their own interests; (b) in relation to decision-making, democracies are inefficient and unstable. In the first defence of non- democratic systems, the argument states that people can be swayed to vote against their own economic
126
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting