Democracy and prosperity
interests for a multitude of reasons: failing to understand what they are supporting owing to a lack of education and understanding, voting along social issues at a personal economic cost based on principle, or even simply believing that they are voting for something not aligned with the reality of their vote. While there is something in each of these criticisms, I would reject the idea that collective decisions are necessarily corrupt or bound to fail. Firstly, universal suffrage creates a diversity in backgrounds and opinions, considering the intersectionality of many different components of people's identities, and thereby nullifies the ability for one group to completely control an election. It also makes tactics such as misinformation targeted at sections of the population less effective, as there are too many differing outlooks to which to appeal. Secondly, open debate and criticism of the government creates flexibility in policy-making. When, for instance, the issues facing an economy shift over time, constant tweaks and changes to policy are required: a system with many options and opinions is more likely to make the right decisions, as it can draw on the diverse expertise and experiences of the population, whereas non-democratic systems will be constrained in the quality and quantity of thought and discussion when it comes time to develop policy. The defence of non-democratic systems – more efficient, more stable, quicker to react and enact – rings true to an extent. The example of China is often adduced here, and how it was able to lift 800 million out of extreme poverty, through the centralized command of its dictators. It is argued that the consistency and longevity of the regime allowed genuinely long-term decisions to be made, such as those to do with infrastructure development. By contrast, the argument continues, the short terms of the typical democratic government mean that leaders overly prioritize short-term impacts in order to be re-elected. Additionally, the supporters of centralized power would argue that, because there is no requirement to subject proposals to bodies like parliaments for approval, government is more efficient and can react to problems faster. Specifically, with issues that face particularly developing economies, such as famines, every day counts. By contrast, I believe that democracies are sufficiently able in emergencies: most democracies have historically been able to use temporary states of emergency and suspend rights when security is necessary, such as during wartime, as seen in the United Kingdom in WWII. Furthermore, while dictatorial regimes tend to class longer than democratic governments, when their ends do arrive, it is often amid violence and instability. The transfer of power from one democratic regime to another has usually been considerably smoother. So, while dictators or other non-democratic leaders can make more long-term plans, the instability created when their rule ends undermines much of what might have been achieved by this, as there is an increased chance of conflict in the struggle for power. The authority of a democratic government stems from the people, and therefore there is (something like) approval for any action the government may take. This makes the economy more flexible and innovative while fixed terms of leadership allow time for temporary instability to blow over before decisions surrounding new leaders can be made. Conversely, in non-democratic systems like China, there is extreme control over things such as the renminbi, and where people can live, as the government cannot risk extreme economic shifts, because the only recourse for the population is to rebel and
127
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting