In almost all studies of development, democracy is considered a prerequisite for progress, be it economic or technological and scientific advancement. Mancur Olsen (University of Maryland) the world renowned economist presented in his award winning book ‘Power and Prosperity’ (2000) that democracies generally develop and progress relative to other systems of governance. Olson argued that under anarchy there is an incentive only to steal and destroy, whilst a dictator has an incentive to encourage a degree of economic success, since he will expect to be in power long enough to take a share of it. In democracies he observes that the protection of one’s citizens and property leads to greater prosperity as leaders could be removed at the ballot box. Olson saw in the move to democracy the seeds of civilization, paving the way for prosperity, which improves incentives for good government by more closely aligning it with the wishes of the population.

Other research has even made democracy a precondition for economic success. Evan Rodrik political science expert at the University of Illinois argued that “democracy as the ‘meta institution’ helps build other institutions and democracy is the only appropriate institutional conditionally for success.” (2) Even though there is no universally accepted definition of democracy there are two principles that any definition of democracy is required to have. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognised freedoms and liberties.

A cursory glance at the nations who continue to advocate such a view and who continue to intervene around the world in the name of democracy illustrates that such an argument holds no weight. In fact much of the developed world developed through antidemocratic polices and there is an argument that the absence of democracy aids development. When voting was first introduced in the West it was confined to a very small minority of land and property-owning men with an unequal number of votes apportioned according to a scale based on property, educational achievement and age. In the US, black males were only given voting rights in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after the civil rights movement. Although they were permitted to vote in 1870 by the fifteenth amendment to the constitution which would not deny vote to anyone on account of race and colour, Southern sates were disfranchised through the use of poll tax and property conditions by central government.

France by 1830 only gave voting rights to those above the age of 30 who paid 300 francs in direct taxes, which was around 0.02% of the population of 32 million. In 1848 male suffrage became universal and it was only during World War 2 that France allowed women to vote, well after it industrialised. Japan achieved universal suffrage after reaching its military pinnacle and even then it was a condition imposed on it by the US to distribute power away from the original regime. The US saw it fit to give Japan full voting rights by 1952 but felt another 13 years were needed to give the same rights to its own citizens! In 1800 which is considered the peak of Britain’s colonial superiority only 3% of Britain’s population had the right to vote. Only voters who owned sizable areas of land in a patchwork of districts created during medieval times could elect members to the House of Commons. This system denied the vote to merchants, manufacturers, and skilled labourers who did not own land. Regions that had been prosperous hundreds of years earlier were overrepresented in Parliament while many new urban centres had no representation at all. Some parliamentary seats were virtually owned by individuals. By 1867 13% of the population could vote. It would take until 1928 (another 61 years) before men and women were given equal voting rights. Democracy most certainly came after development and played no role in the rise of Britain.

The developing world today has given its population more voting rights compared to when the developed nations were going through the same stages. Hence democracy causing economic development should be viewed with caution before buying into economic orthodoxy.

China, Russia (formerly the USSR) and Germany clearly prove democracy is not a prerequisite for economic development and is decisive proof that much can be achieved without democracy. Russia and China appear to be doing rather well without following the example of Western liberal democracy and, indeed, challenge the model with disdain. So the question needs to be asked: is there any relationship between democracy and economic development?