在几乎所有发展研究中,民主都被视为进步的先决条件,无论是经济进步,还是技术与科学的进步。曼瑟尔·奥尔森(马里兰大学)这位举世闻名的经济学家在其获奖著作《权力与繁荣》(2000)中提出,相较于其他治理体制,民主国家通常更能发展和进步。奥尔森认为,在无政府状态下,人们只有偷窃和破坏的动机;而独裁者则有动机促进一定程度的经济成功,因为他预计自己会长期掌权,从而能够分享其中的成果。他观察到,在民主制度下,对公民及其财产的保护会带来更大的繁荣,因为领导人可以通过选票被罢免。奥尔森认为,向民主的转变孕育着文明的种子,为繁荣铺平道路,而繁荣又通过使政府更紧密地契合民众的意愿,改善了良好治理的激励机制。

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.

其他研究甚至把民主视为经济成功的前提。伊利诺伊大学的政治学专家埃文·罗德里克（Evan Rodrik）认为：“民主作为一种‘元制度’，有助于建立其他制度，而民主是取得成功的唯一适当的制度条件。”（2）尽管对民主并不存在普遍接受的定义，但任何关于民主的定义都必须具备两项原则。第一项原则是，社会全体成员都享有平等的权力获取途径；第二项原则是，全体成员都享有普遍公认的自由和权利。

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.

仅粗略看一眼那些继续主张这一观点、并以民主之名在世界各地进行干预的国家,便可看出此种论点站不住脚。事实上,发达世界的大部分地区恰恰是通过反民主的政策发展起来的,也有论者认为,缺乏民主有助于发展。民主投票在西方最初引入时,仅限于极少数拥有土地和财产的男性,而且选票数量并不平等,而是依据财产、教育程度和年龄按一定标准分配。在美国,黑人男性直到民权运动之后,才在1965年《选举权法》中获得投票权。尽管宪法第十五修正案于1870年已允许他们投票,规定不得以种族和肤色剥夺任何人的选举权,但南方各州仍通过人头税和财产条件等手段被剥夺选举权,而联邦政府对此未予有效制止。

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.

1830年的法国，选举权只授予年满30岁、每年缴纳300法郎直接税的人，这大约只占当时3200万人口的0.02%。1848年，男性普选权得以确立，而直到第二次世界大战期间，法国才允许女性投票，那已经是法国工业化之后很久的事了。 日本是在其军事力量达到顶峰之后才实现普选的，而且这还是美国强加给它的条件，目的是把权力从原有的政权中分散出去。美国认为应当在1952年给予日本完整的选举权，但它自己的公民却又等了13年才获得同样的权利！ 1800年，通常被视为英国殖民优势顶峰的时期，英国人口中只有3%拥有选举权。只有拥有相当大面积土地的选民，才能在中世纪形成的一片片零散选区中选出下议院议员。这套制度剥夺了那些不拥有土地的商人、制造商和熟练工人的选举权。数百年前曾经繁荣的地区在议会中获得了过多的代表席位，而许多新兴的城市中心则完全没有代表。一些议会席位实际上被个人所“拥有”。到1867年，英国才有13%的人口拥有选举权。直到1928年（又过了61年），男性和女性才获得平等的选举权。民主显然是在发展之后才到来的，它在英国的崛起中并没有发挥任何作用。

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.