Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No.

30, June 2011 (pp103125)

Development, Governance and Irony of Democracy

- The Veracity Prcis Dr. Md. Ashraf Hossain1 Nurul Huda Sakib2 I. Introduction
The problem of the economic development of then the undeveloped countries moved to the centre of world attention at the end of World War-II amid great hopes that, given the political will, it could be speedily solved. Albeit, most of those nations, after six decades, yet remained as least developed countries (LDCs) having vast peoples under internationally recognized poverty line. While many countries failed to developed, Japan and East Asian tigers popularly known as newly industrialized economies (NIEs) appear to have succeeded within much shorter periods than the western developed countries (DCs). What conditions allow an economy to takeoff? What are the lessons of past conventional and authoritarian development strategies? How Japan and Asian NIEs experience differ from western DCs? How can the new spirit of liberty be brought together with harnessing the capacities of the poverty both for securing good governance and sustained economic growth? The theory and experiences can provide us valuable guidance on the appropriate role of government. Both Western and East Asian governments have played some common roles, as indicated by Stiglitz (1996 and 1997) 1) to spurred development, apparently those are essential in all type of economies. So far, one cannot discuss development or even poverty alleviation in particular without thinking about polity, the state as a political entity. What political system ensures better governance? We have been passing through an eccentric democratic era, since cold war finished. There is a misconception among many that now-DCs became rich absolutely under democratic political system; and in particular, many young educated even strongly believe so. The United Nations (UN) at the beginning of 21st century through HRD Report 20022) has called for a new emphasis on "deepening democracy" at the local, national and international level. Seldom anyone would disagree with it in current days. Traditionally, some western DCs have been campaigning in such ways that democracy like an antibiotic that can be able to cure all social ills! Nevertheless, misuse of democracy, as flawed medicine does to human, could be severe havoc to the countrys economic-growth, and may slow-down the Economic takeoff - a popular view among East Asian economists and policymakers. Successful economic takeoff requires several conditions be met and that the engine runs at full throttle.3) We like such metaphor as it implies that at the time of takeoff everything

1
2

Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, Eastern University, Dhaka. Assistant Professor, Department of Government and Politics, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka.

103

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

has to work for the plane to become airborne. The juggernaut of conventional development intervention, as openly pushing for early democratization simply has been hurtling development of now-LDCs, very harshly because of giving less attention on countrys developmental preparedness or avoiding the critical moment for economic takeoff. What exactly democracies are and what exactly they ought to be, are issues which have become perhaps more complicated with the passage of time; and apparently, the USA and its western allies - the alias prophets of democracy, are perhaps the abusers of their own ideology; and their incredulous and double-standard political policy strategies and sly strategic objectives are prime developmental obstacles in contemporary LDCs. Democracy is not a new concept at all, as ancient Greek philosophers in their great works had been discussed the issues of government, development, democracy and governance, etc. Neither Plato nor Aristotle liked democracy; and both of the philosophers preferred qualitative governance by a "few good guys". Hopefully, we do not underestimate the importance of democracy rather we are investigating the democracy-links to development through analyzing the background features of the economic takeoff periods; which hopefully be helpful way to reach in a conclusion, whether democracy is actually an essential preconditions or not for economic takeoff of now-LDCs, their development and good governance. At the outset, we briefly reveal on two established development patterns namely, the Western Industrial and the East Asian Rapid Growth, their initial conditions and prime policy strategies for the economic takeoff. Our prime intension is to summing-up the irony features of democracy from local to international levels, the most uncommon discussions of politics; and then we reach in a conclusion about the roles of democracy in development and good governance. So far, there is lack of political-will to develop solid political institutions toward to democratic transitions and effective governance, the essential preconditions for all-round development.

II. Movement of Nations toward Development and Democracy

What are the established ideas of economic development? How the contemporary rich nations had developed? History is a mirror on which the image of the present comes into focus by comparison with similarities and differences of the past. Here the authors tried to construct such a mirror regarding two established development patterns under which some nations have developed. Development Patterns, Developed Nations and LDCs Western rich nations have long history of development and industrialization under stable and very limited or non democratic environments. Whereas, Japan and then the Asian tigers appear to have succeeded first with their industrial policy strategies under autocratic and/or limited democratic regimes; however it is generally recognized that many countries in Asia and elsewhere under different democratic systems including socalled military-democracy for decades have been failed to develop because of the combination of various ostrich policies in their development planning and industrial strategies. Industrial Revolution and Western Developed Nations: Western development strategy

104

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

has long history and passed through various stages of industrialization that spread to the industrial revolution (IR) started from Europe in early 18 th century. Among three basic stages of IR, the first stage usually predicted as Textiles & Steam Era: 1712-1830 that harmonized with many machinery invents and patents, whereas in the succeeding stage (1830-1875) new services had been promoted to IR further because of those inventions. The third stage (1875-1905) is most remarkable in IR due to new invent in communication, electricity and chemical sectors. So far, industrialization had been deeprooted in western countries prior World War I. Table 1: The Basic Stages of Industrial Revolution (IR) 4)
IR Stages Machinery Invents and Patents / Machinery-based Services

Textiles & Steam Era: e.g., the Newcomens steam engine (1712) that later improved by James Watts in1770s, John Kays the flying shuttle (1733), James 1st Stage Hargreavess the spinning jenny (1764), the water frame patents by Richard (1712~1830) Arkwright (1769), Samuel Crompton perfects the spinning mule (1779), Edmund Cartwrights patents a power loom (1785), Eli Whitney patents the cotton gin (1793), Robert Fultons steamboat service (1807), George Stephenson begins rail service between Liverpool and London (1830), etc. New Industrial Services Era: e.g. Samuel Cunard begins transatlantic steamship service (1840), Henry Bessemer develops the Bessemer converter (1856), the first 2nd Stage commercial oil well is drilled in Pennsylvania (1859), the Siemens brothers improve (1830~1875) steel-making by developing the open hearth furnace (1866), etc. Communication, Electricity & Chemicals Era: e.g. Samuel F. B. Morse invents the telegraph (1836), Cyrus Field lays the first successful transatlantic cable (1866), A. GRAHAM BELL INVENTS THE TELEPHONE (1876), Thomas 3rd Stage (1875-1905) Edison invents the incandescent light bulb (1892), Rudolf Diesel patents the diesel engine (1899), G. Marconi invents the wireless (1879), and the Wright Brothers make the first successful airplane flight (1903), etc.

The western development pattern deep-rooted from the IR with a start from Europe, especially in the 18th century all of Western Europe gradually began to industrialize but in England it had been accelerated rapidly. During that period, Japan and the NIEs countries were low-income countries and their growth had been based on available local resources and indigenous technological innovations.5) East Asian Industrialization and Growth Miracle: The new wave of industrialization after World War-II was surging successively from early-starting to late-starting countries, specifically in the last few decades of 20th century, when Asian NIEs followed by Japan, had shown the strongest industrial growth in the world. As for instance, in 1960s, when the advanced capitalist countries had a most dynamic vitality that accomplished 5-6 percent of industrial growth rates, both Japan and NIEs were proud of double-digit industrial growth rates during late-1960s, 1970s and part of 1980s.6) The overall economic growth rates in those countries for two decades had been 7 to 8 percent or more a year. The typical model would fail to predict that the Japan and NIEs would become high achievers, and their high-growth experience is often called a Miracle. Average per capita income of Japan in 1880 was US$660 that before the World War II had risen to US$1500

105

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

by 1940 at 1980s prices, when real per capita income was US$9140 and increased to US$29,700 in 1990; and Japan had overtaken all development countries in average per income in early-1990s.7) The four tigers the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore started to grow rapidly in the late-1970s; and the IMF added them to the list of advanced economies in its World Economic Outlook in mid1990s. Malaysia and Thailand started to grow rapidly in the mid-1980s, and China soon followed. What a difference within two-three decades assembled in Asian NIEs, for instance, the South Korea - whose GDP per capita in 1960 was roughly the same as Indias, became a member of OECD in 1996, the only second country from Asia after Japan. Conversely, the enormous development investments of post World War II period under different political systems have so far failed to transform the situation of the poor in then the LDCs, especially the more populous ones, like Bangladesh, where mass poverty still persist in a severe form.8) The East Asian success story raises many issues as, why did some economies grow rapidly and joined the group of industrial countries while others failed to grow at all? How did productivity growth increase? Are there any common trends among the economies that did takeoff? Economic Takeoff of Nations toward Development There is a critical moment in development for economic takeoff a popular view among East Asian economists and policymakers, and usually elaborated development stages. The old idea of economic takeoff is, in which a stagnant agrarian economy was beginning to industrialize, seen as an airplane taking-off. 9) Successful takeoff requires that several conditions - principally economic, social, and political prerequisites, be met and that the engines run at full throttle; and it implies that at the time of takeoff everything has to work for the plane to become airborne. Initial Conditions and Economic Takeoff: Typically an economys metamorphosis initiates from an agrarian state to an economy with a simple industry such as textiles, then to an economy with more sophisticated manufacturing, and eventually to service economy mirrors the history of science and technology. In line with this, various experts have been listed favorite mind-sets in their own-way. Kuznets 10) for instance, observed that countries that had achieved modern economic growth e.g. European countries, USA, Canada, and Japan, shared some explicit characteristics modern scientific thought and technology were applied to industry; real GDP per capita grew at a rapid and sustained rate, usually accompanied by population status; the industrial structure was rapidly transformed; and international contacts and trade expanded. With more data from the Asian NIEs, this list of characteristics may require some rethinking. In a typical regression of cross-country growth rates for last few decades are regressed on initial conditions, including such economic and social variables like political stability, education levels, population status, skill-ness of labor, technology-absorption capacity, and openness to trade, etc. The background features during economic involution period of Japan and NIEs were quite different than the western DCs. Table 2 categorized the basic characteristics of two development patterns in abstractive form.

106

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

Table 2: Checklists of Western and East Asian Development Strategies 11)

Western Pattern [Capitalistic European Countries, USA, etc East Asian Pattern [Japan, Asian NIEs, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.]

At a Glance Image: Constitutional government;At a Glance Image: Authoritarian rules (e.g. Political stability, Sustained economic growth; Military-juntas/ dictatorship, Aristocracy or Prime beneficiaries & controllers of the UN & bureaucracy or strong leadership with limited world trade; Capitalistic economy; Transformed democracy); Politically stable with little humaninto modern democratic ideologies (Post War II) rights; Resource poor but newly industrialized but human rights violators in other places due to with export-oriented strategies; Magic-like incredulous or double- standard political policies economic growth rates, often double- digit, even & sly strategic objectives (e.g. oil price control or without arms-trade; Transformed into democratic arms trade), etc. system & human-rights situations improved, etc. Initial Conditions Initial Conditions Population: Mostly homogeneous & low density. Population: Typically homogeneous and high density. Better socio-economic conditions (e.g. high literacy); Technologies invents & Severe socio-economic conditions: e.g. communications improved. vast peoples under poverty & illiteracy, Long development history e.g. cultural & traditional way of livings. industrial revolution (IR) with skilled manpower Rural subsistence & closed or mixed & agro- employment below 50%. economy with agro- employment over 80% New services with IR but resources mobilized (unskilled & disguised). from & trade facilities created in their respective Less or no natural resources, and basically colonies. isolated from western world. Albeit, in Meiji Era Mostly monarchy or aristocracy/oligarchy but (1868-1912) Japan had established linkages with from 18th century limited democracy (for outside world. businessmen & elites only) but abuse of human Monarchy, dictatorship/oligarchy or rights in colonies. colonial rules (e.g. Korea); and abuse of human Planning and carrying social development rights, etc. strategies (Universal education, Social gaps Prior World War I, planning & carrying reduced, etc.). social development strategies (e.g. in Japan compulsory primary education started in early Meiji Era). Post World War I Periods: Limited democracyPost World War I Periods: Political stability (e.g. prior World War II, no voting rights for through monarchy, aristocracy/ oligarchy and/or women!); Trade-expansion and conflicts strong leaderships or robust colonial creations in colonial territories; Industrialization bureaucracies; Initiatives for higher education & deep- rooted due to invented new machines, research facilities; Quickly absorbed western technologies and communications, new services technologies and skills towards industrialization; & skills development, and free or cheaper raw- Business promotion and infrastructure developed materials supplied from colonial territories, etc. but severely damaged during World War II. Post World War II Periods: Post World War II Periods: Transition into modern democracy with little Authoritarian rules, e.g. dictatorship/ exception of Eastern Europe (until cold-war), military- juntas, aristocracy or limitedbut unjust or confused political polarization (e.g. democracy, leaderships or strong bureaucracy, supporting dictators, even if democratic!); etc. Labor-saving technologies, capitalism & export Planning & carrying nation-buildings promotion including arms trade; etc. programs, e.g., Higher education, research & Economic growth and expansion of military skill-trainings, Poverty redressed, Social gaps power (Arm-race during cold-war periods); and reduced (& caste system abolished, e.g. Eta arms sales in politically-conflicted regions society in Japan). (created by themselves during de-colonization Successful land reforms (e.g. Japan, period or later on); Korea, & Taiwan, etc.) and structural Post cold-war situations became worse, arms transformations; etc. sales increased drastically & new predatory-ness Effective combination of labor-using & of resources, as had been during colonial era. labor- saving technologies; Promotion of export- oriented local entrepreneurs; Rapid absorption of modern technologies; and

107

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125) integration with global markets, etc.

The western development pattern, deeply rooted from the IR with a start from Europe can be defined as the application of power-driven machinery to manufacturing accelerated with ensured raw materials supplied from the colonized territories of their might, especially in the 18th century all of Western Europe began to industrialize gradually but in England it had been accelerated rapidly. Conversely, Japan and Asian NIEs, all of which are poor in natural resources and densely populated; and initially all of them had been faced severe problems of poverty and food insecurity having huge uneducated and unskilled workforce. However, Japans transformation from an agrarian state in the 1890s to an industrial one in the 1930s was much faster than Britains earlier transformation. Japan became industrial super power very quickly having almost no natural resources either of her own, nor much even from her tiny and short-lived colonial territories. The geographical proximity and cultural similarities were helpful for the Asian NIEs to follow Japan. Restructuring Policy Strategies, East Asian Successful Take-off and Now-LDCs: The reasons behind the East Asian quick development and tremendous economic growth are many, those have been reported elsewhere broadly as the successful industrial restructuring policy strategies, area-based development strategies as part of various comprehensive national development plans including national land development plans, known as ZENSO (Zenkoku Sogo Kaihatsu Keikaku),12) and reducing rural-urban and social gaps and redress poverty through sectoral reforms, harmonization of global industrial system with local industrial communities, and export-oriented production and business strategies, etc.13) However, it should not be out of our mind that such tremendous development achievement was actually rooted from and based on past development policies and strategies started from Meiji restoration (1968-1912). Japan, flying in front, is flanked by Hong Kong and Singapore, and followed by the South Korea and Taiwan, and behind them are Malaysia, Thailand, The Philippines, and Indonesia, etc. The economic takeoff that had been discussed by some experts since early-1960s; and probably first had analyzed by Clifford Geertz (1963) 14) in his study of the agricultural economy of Java (Indonesia) in the 1950s and 1960s. He sought to explain why Japan developed so differently from Java; and found that in Japan during the previous more than a century almost all additional population was absorbed in cities and in modern sectors of the economy, whereas in Java only the economy had tried to involutes. At the time of that study, economists were looking for the takeoff point at which the economies of new nations would gain enough momentum to industrialize and grow on their own.

108

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

Greetz attributed the lack of takeoff in Java to colonialism, especially in 1830-70 when Java, he thought, lost its chance to develop like Japan did. Probably the country also lost second chance, as it did not able to follow the Asian NIEs because of long military dictatorship without any development missions and visions. Geertz did not discuss other important issues - the behaviors, beliefs, and organizational capacities of Japan versus Indonesia. It is these very qualities of the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese, which have enabled them to modernize in their own way. Almost 5 decades after his study, Indonesia is not in a state of involution yet; albeit, with huge natural resources the country has been moving ahead economically than the resource-poor LDCs. The post-independence large industrial promotion strategy in many LDCs was a combination of various ostrich policies, above all, lack of political leaderships, inadequate infrastructure, and clear development visions and missions for economic takeoff. As of Auty (1995),15) the provision of an inadequate infrastructure including education and technical skills, and the lack of realistic policies failed after World War-II, however to industrialize; and the vast rural people totaled to three-fourth or more had not been absorbed in agriculture fully, neither been shifted to the other sectors. Economic Development and Popular Metaphors: For economic development, various experts enlisted their favorite metaphors in their own ways, such as Stiglitz (1997) 16) has enlisted four metaphors engine, chemical, biological, and economy-equilibrium metaphors, whereas Ito (1997)17) mentioned three as economic takeoff, biological, and flying geese. To grow, resource-poor economies, as Japan and NIEs, are much dependent on imported inputs, and they have to face demand for their products, often from aboard, which leads export growth basically drives takeoff. However, we also think, the basic structures of the governments in any society the politics and good governance, economic policies, and knowledge in combination shape socio-economic life and livelihoods security, above all, the rapid economic growth, eventually sustaining development. It is now generally recognized that the past development policies for decades in nowLDCs had been failed to deliver sustainable development to those living in poverty as almost all programs represent the classic top-down approach to development, where local governments and communities had little or no say in the process. So far, one cannot discuss development or even poverty alleviation in particular without thinking about polity, the state as a political entity. What political system ensures better governance? We have concentrated our focus more on economic takeoff issue; and here we also like to illustrates a completely different issue, the democracy, whether it is an essential precondition or not in economic development of now-LDCs, whether it is essentially ensures good governance or it is to establish western human rights that however may not be well fits in other cultures and socio-religious settings, or it is anything else, like western political propagandas that resembling for the necessities of fulfilling their concealed strategic objectives. At the beginning of 21st century, as we have mentioned earlier, the UN has called for a new emphasis on "deepening democracy" at the local, national and international level; and the same HRD report18) has warned against compromising human rights and democracy in the fight against global terror, and surprisingly it has also strongly disputed the notion that authoritarian regimes are better for political stability and economic

109

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

growth. Such views are oversimplification of reality as there is yet no implemented proof, even no tested citations that ensure democracy is essential precondition for good governance, political stability and economic growth. Besides parallelism, the Japanese development experience has shown some dissimilarity with other developed nations. So far so on, the mixed development experiences during last few decades under democratic disciplines and authoritarian rules have shown us, there is no way to reach such clear-cut conclusion. In recent times, the UN itself has been suffering from severe image crisis, as it didnt able to improve the human security situations because it openly became flatter of USA and her western allies. Further, in UN system itself, there is no real democratic element, as for instance, the Veto-Power of the five permanent members of Security Council, neither a democratic nor a global political problem solving system; however the details focus here on UN is per se out of the scope of this paper.

East Asian Authoritarianism and Nation-Building in Briefs 19)

Japan and the NIEs countries, as like Western DCs did, prior their industrial revolution, market-economy mechanism and democratic involution, had reached in better socioeconomic position either through monarchy or a dictatorship or aristocracy (or limited democracy) or an oligarchy. Let us give here the brief overviews on political aspects of Japan and some Asian NIEs prior their economic takeoff periods. Japan: Modern nation-building period of Japan started from Meiji restoration (18681912) and the political, social and economic structure had dismantled by the Meiji government; in our view, it was the basic turning point for development of the country. Gradually the hereditary caste system was abolished, freedom of occupation was permitted, and a centralized hierarchy of government bodies was established through creation of nation-wide robust bureaucratic setups. During the Meiji restoration, Japan had been situated at the crossroads of the international power scramble; and Meiji governments nation-building basic policy was "Rich-Nation Strong-Military" to catch up with the western nations.20) However, during the era of the weak emperor Taisho (191226), the political power shifted from the oligarchic clique to the parliament and the democratic parties; and in post World War I periods, Japan's economical situation worsened. During the 1930s, the military established almost complete control over the government; and many political opponents were assassinated, and communists persecuted, and indoctrination and censorship in education and media were intensified. Navy and army officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including the one of the Prime Minister.21) During post War-II periods, Japan gradually transformed into a democratic system, and the politics has been conducted in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic monarchy, where Prime Minister is the head of government. Even Japanese politics uses a multi-party system, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) only had been ruled the country (1955-2009), except for a short-lived coalition government formed from its opposition parties in 1993; and the liberal Social Democratic Party (SDP) came in power on 16 September 2009. South Korea: Despite the countrys brief but checkered history, with no less than nine constitutional amendments and three aborted democratic openings had been against military-juntas/dictators between 1948 and 1988. President Park Chung-hee, after ruling

110

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

for 18 years, was assassinated in 1979; and such abrupt ending of an authoritarian regime left Korean politics in a state of instability. Since the late-1980s, the South Korea, a formerly war-ravaged country, has acquired a scintillating dual identity as an East Asian model of economic prosperity and limited political democracy toward establishing pluralistic governing institutions and protecting the political and civil liberties of its citizens. Korea became the first, the third-wave democracy in East Asia to transfer power peacefully to an opposition party, only in early 1998. Although there is little doubt that Korea is now a secure electoral democracy, with electoral politics the only game in town, its journey toward democratic consolidation is far from complete. Singapore: The politics of Singapore take place in a framework of a parliamentary republic, having a dominant-party (the People's Action Party) system has been dominating the politics since the general election of 1959 (was then a self-governing state within the British Empire), when Lee Kuan Yew became the countrys first prime minister. The opposition parties and political analysts argue Singapore is a de facto one party state or a "hybrid" country with authoritarian and few democratic elements, etc. Western countries consider the form of government to be closer to authoritarianism that could be considered an illiberal democracy, totalitarian democracy or procedural democracy. The Reporters Without Borders (RWB) ranked Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index,22) even if in 2010 it has recognized as number one corruption-free country in the globe.23) Taiwan: In 1949, after losing control of mainland China following the Chinese civil war, the KMT (or Chinese Nationalist Party) withdrew to Taiwan and Chiang Kai-shek declared martial law; and Japan formally renounced all territorial rights to Taiwan in 1952. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a single-party state for forty years until democratic reforms were promulgated in mid-1990s, which culminated in the first ever direct presidential election in 1996; and in 2000 the first non-KMT president was elected as president but the presidential election of 2008 marked the second peaceful transfer of power, again back to the KMT.

Economic Development and Transitions into Modern Democracy

Movement of Nations towards Development and Modern Democracy: The Western DCs prior their industrial revolution, market-economy mechanism and democratic involution, had reached in better socio-economic position, especially they had educated their peoples, through monarchy or a dictatorship or aristocracy (and limited democracy) or an oligarchy. New markets were won and controlled in colonized territories to feed the industrially revolutionized Europe, and new places were created to procure the cheapest raw materials for their industries back home. When they became rich and educated their peoples then they approached the idea of democracy, as for instance many democratic elements had been recognized gradually during post World War II periods, such as universal human rights including the women voting right, official-abolition of the social castes and discriminations, etc. So far, modern democracy in western world had introduced immediate after World War II periods; and apparently, since then many countries have been trying to catch-up western countries in the process of democracy and market economy, as visualized vision of country-grouping shown through Figure 1. The countries, like Japan and Asian NIEs, those who carefully came forward towards to take-off their economy under stable

111

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

political environments as part of their authoritarian rules, have succeeded to develop. Having high savings, high investment, and export promotion are often cited as a common denominator among these economies, all of which are poor in natural resources and densely populated, but there are some basic differences in their development strategies. Large industrial conglomerates dominate Japans and Korean economies, whereas smallscale businesses propelled growth in Taiwan and Singapore. Japan did not rely much on foreign capital but raw materials for its investment, whereas Korea and Singapore borrowed large capital from aboard before achieving surplus in their current accounts. The government mostly owns financial institutions in Taiwan and Singapore, whereas Japanese and Korean financial institutions are basically private and closely connected to large companies. Figure 1: Movement of Nations toward to Development and Modern Democracy 24)
Market Economy
Japan

Western Capitalist World

East European Nations

S. Korea &Taiwan

Thailand & M alaysia

Authoritarian *
Bangladesh * *

Democracy

India
Pakistan China & Singapore Indonesia, N. Korea,Cuba Philippines & M yanm ar & Cam bodia

Centrally -Planned &/ or Mixed Economy

Notes: This figure is an explanation of the periods between Post World War II to now, not drawn to exact time scale; and for lucidity of the figure, only selected countries are considered here. * Communist and Socialist nations as well as countries under dictatorship (military juntas) and monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc. ** The country was part of India, as East Bengal; and after World War II it became part of Pakistan as Eastern wing that became independent in 1971.

112

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

In absence of market-economy mechanism (closed economy), the communists and socialist blocks virtually had collapsed in early 1990s. Those countries during democratic involution however, has moved easily to democratic discipline having little political unrest as they were in much better position, basically in universal education, than the now-LDCs. Conversely, the countries with long tradition of uninterrupted democratic practice (e.g. India) have fared very poor within the overall context of the economic growth, effective governance, income inequality, and socio-religious gaps, etc.! Due to many political zigzagging and long governance crises under various democratic practices, it is however not an easy task to locate the actual position of now-LDCs. The American case is typical one; and the current US foreign policy strategies and attitudes, somehow comparable to the colonial rules.

III. Democracy, Governance, and Development: The Brief Historical Overviews

The real issue that both the success of East Asia and the failure of the socialist experiment and/or diverse long democratic practices in now-LDCs raise is - what an appropriate roles of government in economic development? What exactly democracies are and what exactly they ought to be, are issues which became perhaps more complicated with the passage of time. Democracy is not a new concept; even if, prior World War II it had not been very popular political entity for effective governance and development. Ancient Views on Government and Democracy: Aristotle offered only two qualitative measurements for government - good and bad, and quantitatively, the Greek philosopher classified them as a government by one (good monarchy or a dictatorship), a few (aristocracy or an oligarchy) and by many (democracy or anarchy). Neither Plato nor Aristotle would likes democracy. Because their understanding was, democracy tries to make a donkey an elephant by (the majority) calling a donkey an elephant! Both of the philosophers preferred governance by a "few good guys". Things have changed since then many prefer democracy not because it is the perfect form of government, but it is the most desirable one since it is more (sanguinely!) corrigible than the leadership of one or a few. Limited Democracy and Development: In late 18th Century, some-form of democratic practices first appeared in Europe. Industrial revolution backed by Renaissance gave Europe the lead that housed the most powerful countries Spain, Portugal, France and Britain, etc. Though some of these countries had been practiced limited democracies where even the voting rights were limited to elites and rich merchant classes. Their lower classes were satisfied by a modest standard of living in their own countries, so as not to rise up against the ruling classes of that time; however, they pursued worst form of imperialism in other countries. They had promoted and fathered slavery in its utmost cruel form, trampled, tormented and exploited people of areas they colonized by their might. Most importantly, western world had been mobilized valuable resources from their respective colonies for long; and most of those colonial territories gradually became independent only after World War II, and are basically branded as then the LDCs, in another name now known as third world or developing countries. Democratic Transitions in Asia: Japan has developed its economy through nation-led bureaucratic development strategy since the Meiji Era (1868~1912) and democracy had

113

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

been exogenously introduced only after World War II, and the same strategy had followed by the Asian NIEs in one way or other, as mentioned earlier. Comparatively high political stability for economic development in the NIEs was realized by authoritarian political rules at the expense of democracy, human rights, etc. Japan having almost no natural resources has added new waves in development that little different than the western world did; and the success of Japan and then the Asian tigers, demonstrates the effectiveness of a more market-base development strategy; even if those governments not persist fully in the rigid planning model, especially they did not err by going to the other extreme, such as early-democratization that in many now-LDCs are pushing to practice by the America and its western allies, the alias prophets of democracy; even if they themselves have been abusing their own democratic ideologies in other parts of the world. In recent years, Chinese economy has been growing rapidly even without democratic philosophy, although there are other favorable elements.25) Again, Malaysian experience having comparatively limited democratic practices but strong leadership has shown us another example for rapid development. Whereas, in absence of market-economy mechanism (closed economy), the East European communists and socialist blocks virtually had collapsed in early-1990s; albeit, their better infrastructural positions, basically in universal education and skills than the now-LDCs had helped much easily move into the modern democratic discipline. Conversely, the countries with long tradition of uninterrupted democratic practice (e.g. India) have been performing very poor within the overall context of the economic growth, effective governance, and reducing income inequality and socio-religious gaps, etc. After the first few years of independence, democratic rule in Pakistan yielded to military dictatorship and became deep-rooted military-culture, whereas India preserved its democracy partly because not only elites commitment but due to huge regional as well as socio-cultural differences (e.g. there are 33 major languages of which 19 are official) to control by any military juntas or dictator. Democratic Juggernauts and Contemporary LDCs: Prior socioeconomic development, especially universal educational achievement for all, neither western countries nor Japan, and nor even Asian NIEs had involutes democratic ideologies, as we have indicated earlier. The modern democracy in western world has been promised equal rights to their citizens, gave the right for individuals to decide by whom they shall be governed, and the priorities be decided and acted upon. However, the western democratic-juggernaut, basically the pushing for earlydemocratization simply has been hurtling development of now-LDCs, because of less or no attention on socio-cultural and behavioral issues; background features e.g. initial conditions, educational and skill levels, etc; and local institutional settings, above all preparedness for their economic takeoff periods. Apparently, the USA and its western close allies - the alias prophets of democracy, are perhaps the abusers of their own ideologies; and their incredulous and/or double standard political policy strategies and sly strategic objectives are the prime developmental obstacles in now-LDCs. The rest of this article tried to focus on all those aspects, sometimes with particular reference to the American democracy, a typical case when we compare with the other western democracies.

IV. Modern Democracy and Development The Prcis of Facts and Realities
In recent times, political regimes of all kinds describe themselves as democracies but it

114

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

has not always been so. The HRD 2002 defined the goals of good governance as respect for fundamental rights and freedom, accountability of the rulers; fair rules (institutions, and practices governing social interactions); non-discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or any other attributes; need of future generations to be reflected in current policies; responsiveness of economic and social policies to people's needs and aspirations; eradication of poverty; people having a say in decisions affecting their lives, etc. It is a tall order to measure up to these standards. In fact, most of above issues never ever and never honestly tried to achieve under democratic system. Apart from the difficulty of knowing what democracy is, as future destination might be like, how much credence should we give to the possibility that a given country will actually get there? New Politic Colonization: The problem of the economic development of then the LDCs moved to the centre of world attention at the end of World War-II amid great hopes that, given the political will, it could be speedily solved. As the LDCs, one after another, became independent of their colonial rulers, and in creation-process, many peculiar political arrangements were done by the colonial rulers having supports from their created elite classes for their hidden objectives, especially resources predatory-ness that later-on resulted many conflicts among LDCs, for instance, the strange-partition of Kashmir and Bengal territories by the British is the deep-rooted reason behind the long India-Pakistan conflicts; and the innocent human-beings of both countries already have suffered a lot from 3 major wars. The new-LDCs governments had placed rapid economic target high on their policy agenda under the same or similar objective-oriented as well as elite dominated administrations and infrastructures engineered by the colonial rulers. The Political Polarization and Self-Ideology Abuses: In the name of helping then the LDCs to achieve the development objectives, the governments of the western DCs and then the new socialist-block or authoritarian states undertook to provide technical and financial assistance devoid of local realities and preparedness of the LDCs. The relationship between the various states adopting communism or pursuing liberal democracy had been strained at best; and the two represented conflicting views of the world with little room for ideological conciliation and they were neither fairly implemented their own political ideologies, nor even their policy strategies were for advancement of the LDCs, rather towards to controlling the regional power and to do decadent businesses, especially arms-trade. For instance, during whole cold war period, the Pakistan, a completely military-dominated authoritarian state in South Asia had been received economic and military supports openly from the USA, and there are dozens of other such examples of support to the autocratic regimes and human-rights abusers (e.g. Jordan and Iraq)! Conversely, the former Soviet Union, even had raised placards for communist blocks, surprisingly had been supported India, the largest democratic country! Thus, after six decades of the publicized efforts under their double-standard deliberate policy strategies, in the event to bring about development, the early hopes have been disappointed. In post cold war era, accordingly, a coincidence of forces evolved which end some to believe that this final stage of democratization had arrived, that in fact became a great threat for human security due to unjust wars in the name of terrorisms or disarmament or democratic transition but it became clear to the world people about the predatory-motives and strategic objectives of the so-called prophets of democracy. In regions where there is

115

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

no or less conflicts, the resources predatory axis pushed through either western humanrights or any other political propagandas (e.g. security of other country) in order to secure fat orders for arms and to capture resources or ensure resources price that remain low (e.g. oil prices in middle east). As for instance, it would be clear if we look on recent years double standard USA foreign policy strategies basically arm-trade in South Asia one way it has been providing military equipments to Pakistan (e.g. military aircrafts) at the same time selling equipments to India how to destroy those! Arm Trade, Western World and Growing Global Insecurity: After cold war, it has assumed that all systems will conform to the democratization system without addressing the local culture, traditions and institutions. Indeed, the scarcity of resources and the tightness of fiscal constraints facing LDCs today make it imperative that resources be spent efficiently; and they have been spending huge amount for military spreading-out, even if vast of the peoples are under recognized poverty line. The arms industry is unlike any other as it operates without any regulation, not even monitored by the UN, and it suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human-beings. Oxfam says, the irresponsible sale of weapons to the LDCs is diverting money from development and promoting global insecurity; and the net result is the now-LDCs whose health and education budgets are spent on weapons caches. Pakistans total defense expenditure in 2002, for instance, consumed half of the countrys GDP! So, who profits most from this murderous trade? These days, the USA and it western allies routinely sells weapons not only to the democratic countries (e.g. India, Taiwan, etc.) but also to the many undemocratic regimes e.g. Pakistan, most Arab nations, those as of western world, are the gross human rights abusers!26) In fact, up to $900 billions is spent each year on defense, but only $60 billions on aid, as has indicated by the Oxfam! Traditionally, the USA, the UK, and France earn more income from arms sales to LDCs than they give in aid. For instance, in 2002 roughly 90 percent of all arms deliveries to Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa; and during 1999-2002, the LDCs accounted for 64.6 percent of all arms transfer agreements made globally; and all those arms basically supplied by the five permanent members of the UN security council 27) - the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for over four-fifth of all reported conventional arms exports. Oxfam has called for an international treaty to regulate and control the multibillion dollar industry. Besides many criticisms, the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council together with Germany and Italy account for around 85 percent of the arms sold during 2002-2009; 28) and traditionally near half of all arms trade even done by the USA, even if democratic nation! The USA and its western allies does not actually support democracy in now-LDCs, especially in the Middle East because it is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies bound to be thrown up by a democratic system. For instance, in the Middle East countries, with the exception of Israel that has provided an exemplary democratic system for its Jewish citizens, none of Americas allies in the region could really be considered democracies. Indeed, the USA has reduced or maintained at low levels support - its economic, military, and diplomatic - to Arab countries that have experienced substantial political liberalization in recent years, 29) while it has been increasing support for autocratic regimes e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. The

116

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

democratic campaigns of the USA and its western allies are not so visible in resourcepoor areas (e.g. North Korea) or in the countries where resources are already under their control (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Where such strategy not easy then pushed through either using juggernaut of democracy and western-style human-rights30) or any other political propaganda! As was the recent case of Iraq; and another example is Iran, the only Arabian nations that somehow holding a democratic system but became great enemy of America, as she is yet not ready to fulfilling the western strategic objectives. Very recently, some political hooliganism is reported in some Middle East countries, e.g. Egypt, Libya, Jordan, etc, in the name of democratization.

The US Democracy At a Glance

Real and participatory democracy is a romantic fiction. The need for political reform is not limited to LDCs only, in fact, there are no perfect democracies on earth. Democracy is government by the people but the responsibility for the survival of democracy rests on the shoulders of elites. The central proposition of elitism is that all societies are divided into two classes, the few who govern and the many who are governed. Elitism implies that public policy does not necessarily reflect demands of the people so much as it reflects the interests and values of elites.31) Elites, not masses, in reality few large entrepreneurs govern even America, just as in a totalitarian society is shaped by a handful of guys. In USA, constitutional review is the prerogative of 9 un-elected persons who hold their jobs for life. The fact remains, however, that in November 2000 the electoral system in the USA failed to yield a result that could be widely accepted by most voters. Al Gore had won the national vote. Had that been enough, he would have become president-elect forthwith but Electoral College stood in his way! 32) On four such occasions - 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the presidential candidate with the largest popular vote failed to obtain an electoral vote majority.33) Majoritarian democracy has been held back to create an island of autocracy the Supreme Court, with the power to inhibit the ability of the majority to dictate the minorities including individuals. Again, vote manipulation and the margin of error in that election was far greater than the margin of victory, no matter who wins. Conversely, it was true that more than a month of living without a president-elect had not driven supporters to riot in the streets or the Joint Chief of Staff had not turned themselves into a junta, and there were no tanks on the streets. Certainly not only awareness nor even absolutely the rule of law-enforcement are the reasons behind it but as a result of complex interactions between many elements, especially we think robust reason is as, most voters satisfaction due to a modest standard of living in their own countries that in fact well enough not to rise up against the political elites. Yet there is no guarantee that democracy be always safe in the hands of any elected elites; and once elected as state representative either through popular-vote or any other means of manipulation (e.g. by misuse or influencing bureaucracy and media or favoring corporate-interests, or cunning programming for vote-casting, and so on) there is no guarantee that the guy will be intelligent enough to serve the peoples, and rather be a real idiot and/or a school C-grader, as had indicated to the last US president Bush junior;34) and in such cases the masses may be fatally vulnerable to tyranny, and global humanity no-doubt would be in danger.

117

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

Aspects of US Electoral Participation: Another problem with the theory of popular control over public policy through federal elections is the fact that nearly half of the adult population, though educated, fails to vote, even in US presidential elections, and typically the peoples participation reportedly has been very low for off-year congressional elections (Figure 1). For instance, in 1998 election for seats in the House and Senate reported as low as 36.4 percent of age-eligible Americans had bothered to vote that extremely lower than any other modern democracies. If the country is a democracy, where freedom of speech is valued above all other freedoms, a citizen might feel obligated to speak out against the wrong or iniquitous policies of his own government. In fact, it might be his duty as a citizen but reality is once people elected their leader nobody care voters, regardless rich or poor nations. In USA, even majority peoples opinions on very sensitive issues, especially the decisions about the foreign policy strategies were ignored during 1990s and recent past years. Importantly also, for any international issue (say, military attack in particular country) American government takes opinion of their own citizens rather the opinion of the respective countrys residents! Figure 2: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1950-2008 35)
100 90

Participation in

Presidential &Congressional Elections (1950-2008)

I n percentage (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 1974 0

Surely, American citizens enjoy certain degree freedom of expression under their own democratic system but why a significant number of them have no interest in opinion polls? Other side of the coin is, even most American citizens have no or less interest in current world-affairs, and best part even ignorant about exact locations of any particular country invaded by their own military (e.g. Somalia, Panama, Afghanistan or Iraq, etc.). Even most highly literate citizens do not know when their civil war took place or never heard of the Voting Rights Act, etc., and surprisingly it is not about only the ordinary citizens but the most graduates and students of the 55 prestigious universities including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc! 36)

Democracy vs. Governance

Democracy neither could be the guarantee for good governance, nor even the only treatment to cure all existing crises. As of CPI index of the Transparency International (TI), around 70 percent countries score less than 5 out of a clean score of 10, which reflects perceived levels of corruption among politicians and public officials. Corruption is perceived to be rampant in now-LDCs with a score of less than 2, whereas the

118

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

countries with very low levels of perceived corruption having a score over 9 are predominantly some European DCs such as Finland, New Zeeland, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, etc; 37) and albeit, the only exception from Asia is Singapore (Table 3), which never recognized as a modern democratic country but became the most cleanest entity in the globe in 2010. Conversely, the richest representatives of two development patterns, namely USA and Japan, both are now believed to be in modern democracy but their corruption levels and governance situations are very doubtful, as we see the poor CPI scores. Among nowLDCs, many of them experienced various democracies, as for instance, Bangladesh had been under military dictators in most years of pre and post liberation periods of 1971, albeit the country had been experienced peculiar military-democracies; and her new reasonable democratic journey began only after 1991 parliamentary election with great hope for economic takeoff, although it has virtually become an arena of political rivalry between the successors of two dead patriarchs. In 2001, the country became the worlds most corrupted one in CPI scores for the first time and remained champion for five years (2001-2005). Table 3: The CPI Rank and Score for Selected Countries: 2001-2010 38)
CPI Rank (CPI Score) Country [Score ranges: 10 = highly clean, 0 = highly corrupt] Year 2001 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 USA 16 (7.6) 20 (7.2) 22 (7.1) 18 (7.3) 22 (7.5) 22 (7.1) Japan 21 (7.1) 17 (7.8) 17 (7.5)*3 18 (7.3) 17 (7.7) 17 (7.8) Singapore 4 (9.2) 5 (9.4) 4 (9.3) 4 (9.2) 3 (9.2) 1 (9.3) Bangladesh*
1

Country Surveyed 91 163 179 180 180 176

91 (0.4) 156 (2.0)*2 162 (2.0) 147 (2.1) 139 (2.4) 134 (2.4)

Notes: CPI Corruption Perception Index; and CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and risk analysts, and score ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt). *1 Bangladesh was placed at the bottom of the list i.e. most corrupted country for the fifth successive year (2001-05). *2 Most corrupted along with Chad, Congo & Sudan, and *3 jointly with Ireland.

In LDCs, politicians increasingly pay lip service to fight against corruption. Corrupt political elites working hand-in-hand with greedy business people and unscrupulous investors, are putting private gain before the welfare of citizens and the economic development of their countries. Further, the Bribe Payers Index (BPI) 39) of the TI addresses the propensity of companies from top exporting countries to bribe in emerging markets. The BPI 2002, for instance, revealed high levels of bribery by firms from Russia, China, Taiwan and South Korea, closely followed by Italy, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan, USA and France, etc., although many of these countries signed the Anti-Bribery Convention of OECD, which outlaws bribery of foreign public officials. Thus, good governance is essential, not only in LDCs but also in international level, specifically DCs at first need to prevent their countrys firms from bribery.

119

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

V. Discussions and Concluding Remarks An economys metamorphosis from an agrarian state to an economy with a simple industry, such as textiles, to an economy with more sophisticated manufacturing, and eventually to service economy mirrors the history of science and technology. According to Lewis,40) economic development in a country means a process that firstly produces modern light industry with high productivity and continuously enlarged reproduction in a dominant economy of traditional industry with enormous surplus laborers. Therefore, a low productivity gaspingly then pulls out the surplus laborers from traditional industry, and expands an economic weight of the modern industry in a country. In such regards, apparently, there are little differences among recognized two development patterns, their industrial restructuring and sectoral reforms processes, etc. In Japan and Asian NIEs, however, the adjustments problems among sectors, the background features, and their preparedness for economic takeoff were quite different than the western DCs. Conversely, the post-independence large industrial promotion strategy in many nowLDCs was a combination of various ostrich policies. While many countries failed to develop particularly because of their unprepared-ness for the economic takeoff, Japan and Asian NIEs have succeeded within much shorter periods than the Western DCs. The most remarkable phenomenon of economic development in last century and more specifically after World War-II has undoubtedly been the Japanese case because of magic-like growth experiences. The geographical proximity and cultural similarities were helpful for the Asian NIEs to follow Japan. Their rapidly rising per capita income had been accompanied by major changes in industrial structure, however prime lessons here are, the successful takeoff through an industrial policy requires several conditions, principally economic, social, and political prerequisites, be met and that the engine runs at full throttle; and to grow, economies have to face demand for their products, often from aboard, which leads export growth often drives takeoff. We have concentrated our focus more on economic takeoff issue of the two established development patterns; and then expanded our concentration on democracy linkages to development, as we cannot discuss development in particular without thinking about the polity, the state as a political entity. Now developed nations, regardless Western or East Asian, had been under stable non-democratic environments; and when they did overcome their socioeconomic problems, above all educated their peoples, only then they proceeded to the idea of modern democracy. So far, modern democracy in western world had introduced immediate after World War II; and apparently, since then many countries have been trying to catch-up western countries in the process of democracy and market economy. However, the success of Japan and Asian NIEs demonstrate the effectiveness of a more market-base development strategy; even if those governments not persist fully in the rigid planning model, especially they did not err by going to the other extreme, such as any early democratization. They have achieved their remarkable economic growth and rapid development through discipline enforced by the bureaucratic system or a political strongman or limited democracies, and gradually have been easing their way into a more democratic style of governance. The idea of democracy is curious, complex and conflicting-conceptions, and the history of democracies is puzzling. Apart from the difficulty of knowing what democracy is, as future destination might be like, how much credence should we give to the possibility

120

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

that a given country will actually get there? The vast de-colonized countries are still politically unstable and economically poor under so-called democratic practice for long by keeping most people in rural-setting and without universal primary education. While military dictatorship is inimical to democratic governance, there is no guarantee that civilian rule cannot degenerate into blatant authoritarianism. Further, regarding good governance, the experiences of Singapore tell us that the now-LDCs in essence need not to be democratic. Thus, it is essentially difficult to reach any clear conclusion on, what political system should follow to lead contemporary LDCs into good governance and sustainable development. One may argue, why many other countries like Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), North Korea, Pakistan etc., having authoritarian rules remain stagnant? The corollary is that, regardless location or political system, where leadership in sincere and dynamic and where institutional atmosphere conducive to sincerity and loyalty among bureaucrats and politicians, good results can be achieved. That is the case of Japan and Asian NIEs. The lessons of great ancient philosophers (Aristotle and Plato) regarding effective and good governance by a few good guys even in modern era might have strong validity. So far so on, the discussions here suggest that the strong disputed notion of HDR 2002 on authoritarian regimes, as we mentioned earlier, is over simplification of reality. Modernization need not imply Westernization in the sense of necessary conformity to a single Western model. Such a conclusion is encouraging to most of nonWesterners who want to make progress without losing their identity and social values. Similarly, democratization surely need not imply Americanization. The USA and a.k.a. its western allies actually not support democracy in now-LDCs, because towards to fulfill their strategic objectives need it is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling families than a wide variety of personalities and policies bound to be thrown up by a democratic system. The geographical proximity and cultural similarities of East Asias successful economies raise obvious questions about whether a formula for growth can be extracted from their experience. In short, even if there are many lessons we can learn from East Asian strategy but copy and paste of that strategies may not be the perfect solution for now-LDCs. Questions should ask of the political processes, practices and institutions of now-LDCs, in particular, whether they reflect the desire of the peoples. Japan and NIEs experiences indicate that the political stability is not the only condition but structural transformations and convincing socioeconomic policies, collectiveness of the peoples, etc., are essential conditions. With due respect to democratic ideologies, the authors understanding is, the strategies of western DCs, may not be the way to solve the contemporary LDCs problems directly. Unfortunately, the exuberance of democracy may lead also to severe disorderly conditions, which are inimical to development. If democracy is introduced to LDCs before or at the beginning of overall socioeconomic development, especially basic services provision and universal education, it usually negatively influences political stability and bureaucratic functions. Conversely, this dilemma raises yet another important question - what major reforms needed in democratic transitions in now-LDCs. Also strong question is, whether now-LDCs are ready to or be able to do so by keeping majority of their population out of universal education and other basic needs.

121

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

The rule of law is as important to the development of a free market as it is to the development of democracy. Free markets are very important for economic growth and the generation of opportunities for citizens, but sound rules are equally as important. The name of Adam Smith is often invoked in support of complete laissez-faire, but Adam Smith advocated no such thing. Smith had emphasized the importance of institutions, rule of law and so on. Democracy is at its weakest when the citizenry loses confidence in its governing elites; and in recent times, political regimes of all kinds describe themselves as democracies but it has not always been so. There is lack of political-will to develop pattern of interpersonal inhabits as a basis for building-up solid political institution to ensure effective governance, which is important precondition for all-round development. For example, if bureaucracy is fragile and easily influenced by political pressure, relying on government-led industrial or any development policy would be ineffective. Democracy requires a strong sense of community and therefore this resolves the issue of individual and collective rights. We are moving into a phase where the criteria of legitimacy of governments will be based more on performance than on historic legitimacy only. This will affect how any particular country organizes her politically. The ruling elites attitude towards freedom and civil liberties is a major factor in determining whether a democracy succeeds or fails. In nascent and fragile democracies, courts are often weak and corrupt, and only partial media-freedom is not enough to ensure good governance, and in fact in many places yellow journalisms yet a great threats. In modern time, neither monarchy, nor dictators or military-juntas, nor even western democratic-juggernaut under their double-standard policy strategies, no longer is desirable in the LDCs. Development should not be simply as a question of so-called democracy only that has been practicing in LDCs or nor only economic growth strategy. The rules must rule everyone, including the rulers. It is this lack of appreciation for the value of rules and institutions that now threatens most countries, like Bangladesh with nascent and fragile democracies. People are mostly poor not because of mind-set created by established development thinking only but for the complex number of reasons. It is worth emphasizing that poverty is the central of many interrelated problems, thus need an integrated approach to curb poverty as well as to prolong development. As Todaro stated,41) development must be conceived of as a multidimensional process involving major changes in social structures, popular attitudes, and national institutions, as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of absolute poverty. Most importantly, all levels participation in economic activity that presupposes the existence of some reasonable form of democracy and rule of law. But the existing distortions within the country in many societies make it impossible to move toward achieving democratic objectives. So far, there is lack of political-will to develop pattern of interpersonal inhabits as a basis for building-up solid political institutions including the peoples organizations to ensure effective governance, an important precondition for all-round development. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we believe that only a strong national government regardless to any particular political system, with power to exercise its will directly on the people, would be able to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common socio-economic security, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of humanity and liberty.

122

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

References and End Notes

1). Joseph E. Stiglitz (1997): The Role of Government in Economic Development, Keynote Address, In M. Buruno and B. Pleskovic (eds.), Annual World Bank (WB) Conference on Development Economics 1996, WB (1/1997): pp11-23. Also J. E. Stiglitz (1996): Some Lessons from the East Asian Miracle, The World Bank Res. Observer, 11(2) (Aug.). See, Human Development Report (HDR: 2002): Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World, UNDP. For detail, please refers to - W.W. Rostow (1960): The Stages of Economic Growth A NonCommunist Manifesto, Cambridge Univ. Press; S. Kuznets (1971): The Economic Growth of Nations, Harvard Univ. Press; Clifford Geertz (1963): Agricultural Involution the Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia, California Univ. Press (Barkeley); S. Ishikawa (1967): Economic Development in Asian Perspective, Kinokyniwa Bookstore (Tokyo); Mobilized from M. Ashraf Hossain (2001): Industrial Revolution, Development Patterns and Developed Nations, Discussion Paper, No. 4, Lecture Series of Postgraduate Seminar, The Graduate School of Social & Cultural Studies, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan (March). Please consult with: Y. Miyakawa (2001): Local Initiatives in Regional Development and Global Transformation within the Japanese Orbit, In J.E. Nickum & K. Oya (eds.): Environmental Management, Poverty Reduction, and Sustainable Regional Development, New Development Paradigms-Vol. 4, (Greenwood Press/Westport in cooperation with UNCRD). Also see, H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): Nation-Building and Regional Development The Japanese Experience, Maruzen Asia (Published for & on behalf of UNCRD). See also, Yujiro Hayami (1980): A Century of Agricultural Growth in Japan, University of Tokyo Press, Japan.; Yujiro Hayami, W. R. Vernon, and M. S. Herman (1979/eds.): Agricultural Growth in Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Lee & D.W. Culver (1985): Agricultural Development in Three Asian Countries A Comparative Analysis, Agricultural Economics Research, 37(1): pp.9-13; and C. Lee & D.W. Culver (1985): Agricultural Development in Three Asian Countries A Comparative Analysis, Agricultural Economics Research, 37(1): pp.9-13. See, United Nations Statistical Yearbooks, various years of late-1960s, 1970s and 1980s. YKMF (1981/ed.: Yono Kotaro Memorial Foundation): Suji-de-miru Nippon-no-hyakunen (100 years of Japan: Facts and Figures). Also, YKMF (1996/ed): Sekai-kokusai-zue (World Census Compendium) (in Japanese). Also, H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): Ibid (Ref.# 5). As of various local and international organizations, around 40-45% people are yet very poor, those daily incomes fall below US$1 in PPP scale. As of World Fact Book Bangladesh estimate, around 40 percent Bangladeshis are yet below the poverty line <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html> (15.5.2011). W.W. Rostow (1960); Clifford Geertz (1963); and S. Ishikawa (1967): Ibid (Ref.# 3) Kuznets (1971): op. cit. (Ref.# 3). Modified from M. Ashraf Hossain (1999): Peoples Activities, Resources Management and the Grassroots Institutional Paradigm Evidence from Modus Operandi of the Grameen Bank, Doctoral Dissertation, Nagoya University (Mar.: Nagoya, Japan). M. Ashraf Hossain and N. H. Sakib (2009): Area Planning and Land Management in Japan - The Development Tools and the Central-Local Roles, Journal of Administrative Studies, No.2, June, Jahangirnagar University, Savar: pp115-130. H. Takeya (1991): Industrial Restructuring and Agricultural Organization in Japan, International Review of Economics and Business, Vol. XXXVIII, No.12 (Dec.), Milano. Also, Y. Miyakawa (2001) & H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): Ibid (Ref.# 5).

2). 3).

4).

5).

6). 7).

8).

9). 10). 11).

12).

13).

123

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

14). 15). 16). 17).

Clifford Geertz (1963): op. cit. (Ref.# 3). M. R. Auty (1995): Patterns of Development- Resources, Policy and Economic Growth, London: Edward Arnold. Stiglitz (1997): op. cit. (Ref. #1) T. Ito (1997): What Can Developing Countries Learn from East Asias Economic Growth? In B. Pleskovic & J. E. Stiglitz, (ed.): Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1997, World Bank. HDR 2002 (UNDP): op. cit. (Ref. # 2). M. Ashraf Hossain (2001): op. cit. (Ref. # 4). To bridging the technological gap with Western countries, beside educational infrastructure development and the compulsory universal education, some remarkable initiatives also had taken; and some of such initiatives, for example, were-- Sending Japanese students overseas for higher study and processional/technical training or so on; Inviting overseas professionals and experts at higher educational institutions and major projects; and Import of Western technologies those either directly transferred to individual entrepreneurs and/or established model factories and then transferred to the private sector. Please refers to: Y. Miyakawa (2001), and H. Nagamine (1981/ed.): op. cit. (Ref. #5). E.O. Reischauer (1993): Japan the History of a Nation, 3rd Edition, Charles E. Tuttle Co. (Tokyo). Also, Pictorial Encyclopedia of Japanese Culture The Soul and Heritage of Japan, (1987), Published by Gakken Co. Ltd. (Tokyo). Reporters Without Borders (RWB) is a France-based intl. NGO was founded in 1985 that advocates freedom of the press <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders> (Accessed: 20.04.2011). CPI Annual Report 2010, Transparency International <http://www.transparency.org>. Modified from, M. Ashraf Hossain (1999): op. cit. (Ref. #11). For instance, Chinese big domestic market enormously is a plus point for economic involution that has been attracting foreign investors in one way and others. Further, one basic difference between China & former Soviet Union (USSR) or its eastern blocks or now North Korea, China has had robust business-links even with her biggest political-rival, the USA. For some understandings on conventional Arms Transfers to the LDCs and the related stories, please refer to Stockholm Intl. Peace Res. Institute (2004): Yearbook 2004Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford Univ. Press); Control Arms Campaign CAC (2003): The Arms Bazaar, Shattered Lives (Chapter 4), In Control Arms Campaign, Oct. 2003. See, Richard F. Grimmett (2002 & 2010): CRS Report for Congress on Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations: 2002-2009, The US Congressional Research Service. The UN was created after World War-II with leading efforts by the America and her key allies in the name of preserving world peace through international cooperation and collective security! The UN and all its agencies and project-programs funds spend about $1.70 for each of the worlds inhabitants, of which handsome portion spend for staff salary, their family benefits and for UN missions, etc. Yet, the UNs entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the worlds military expenditure, around 1.5%. See, Global Policy Forum (2003): UN Financial Crisis, Global Policy Forum, 12/2003. Also In <http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/> Richard F. Grimmett (2010): op. cit. (Ref. #26). Jordan, for example, received large-scale U.S. support in the 1970s and 1980s despite widespread repression and authoritarian rule; when it opened up its political system in the

18). 19). 20).

21).

22).

23). 24). 25).

26).

27).

28). 29).

124

Asian Studies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JU, No. 30, June 2011 (pp103125)

early 1990s, the U.S. substantially reduced support, and for a time, suspended foreign aid. Surprisingly, aid to Yemen was cut off within months of the newly unified countrys first democratic election in 1990! 30). An important corollary to 'human rights, freedom and justice' is due process and in an ideal world all citizens of all countries would have all the rights. But we do not live in an ideal world and even do not know of a single system that would ensure all rights for everyone. It seems that we can only have few and sacrifice the rest indeed it is a trade off, especially western human rights concept has been tried to equated with the fundamental rights and freedom, which may not be fit with many other societies or surely would not matched with other cultures (e.g. in India). Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler (1975): The Irony of Democracy An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics, 3rd Ed., Duxbury Press, Wadsworth Publishing Co. (Belmont, California). For detail of How a President Is Nominated and Elected and for Electoral College and related links, see <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781446.html> (Accessed: 29.04 2011). US National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections <http://www.infoplease.com/pa/A0781453. html> (Retrieved: 29.04.2011). See, Michael Moore (2002): Stupid White Men - and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, Penguin Books (Victoria: Penguin Group Australia Ltd). Mobilized from: op. cit. (Ref. # 33). A group of total 556 seniors and students were giver a multiple-choice test consisting of 34 questions with wide range of choices that were described as high school level but these top students could only answer 53% of them correctly. A whopping 40% of them did not know when the Civil War took place and 70% had never heard of the Voting Rights Act! However, two questions they scored highest on, were: (a) Who is Snoop Doggy Dog? (Snoop & fellow rappers have much to say about Americas social ills!), and (b) who are Beavis and Butt-head? (Which represented some of the best American satire of the 1990s) as of them 98% and 99% respectively knew right answer! For some interesting realities and related views, please refer to Moore (2002): op. cit. (Ref. # 34). Transparency Intl. Reports: 2001-10 <http://www.transparency.org>(Retrieved: 21.4.2011). Mobilized from: Ibid. The Bribe Payers Index 2002, Transparency Intl. (Berlin) <.http://www.transparency.org> (Retrieved: 21.4.2009). See, W. A. Lewis (1954): Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour, Vol. 2, Manchester School of Social Studies. Also, W. A. Lewis (1978): The Evolution of the International Economic Order, Princeton. M. P. Todaro (1989): Economic Development in the Third World, New York: Longman.

31).

32)

33). 34). 35). 36).

37). 38). 39). 40).

41).

125