Is democracy required for development?

Excerpts from India Tonight on CNBC-TV18 Watch the full show »

The Centre for Study of Developing Societies has published a report on the state of democracy in South Asia. So what does the report have to say? Simply, that the concept of democracy may not be understood in the same manner by different countries. But that, people still will choose to have democracy over autocracy or a authoritarian figurehead, any day.

Professor Yogendra Yadav from the Centre for Study of Developing Societies told CNBC-TV18, " This particular study is not based on our idea of democracy. We actually approached 20,000 people across five countries and this is the first time - a survey of this kind and breadth has taken place. And one thing the survey suggested to us is that, while democracy is shared all over the world but it acquires different meanings. It's like cinema - the technique is similar but what you put in cinema is different all over South Asia - this is exactly what we found with the concept of democracy."  

The report also goes on to say that democracy is conditioned by three conditions: nationalism, desire for a strong state and the idea of modernity. So are these qualities, what makes democracy in South Asia distinctive? Editor of Himal, Kanak Mani Dixit agrees and explains, " I come from a country that has recently reacquired democracy and what you realise is that people at the ground level espouses the same principles just listed. Therefore, I tend to believe that we denigrate people's desire for democracy, which is strong, regardless of liberal western education."

But is this the answer for the various forms of democracy to be found in this part of the world? Democracy has survived in India and Sri Lanka but has found it tough going in Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Professor Peter D'Souza from the Centre for Study of Developing Societies says that the simple answer to this is that the "elites of all these countries toyed with their Constitutions, while in India, the Constitution triumphed over the behaviour of the elites. So, I think the first thing is that we have created a Constitutional culture, which has now become important for the working and success of democracy."                  

The report also highlighted some interesting facts. Six out of every ten respondents in Pakistan and Bangladesh wanted the army to be in charge. Professor Yadav says this kind of response was also given by people in India and Sri Lanka and that should be worrying us. He says, "There are people who want democracy but are not opposed to army rule at the same time, which shows that there is a lack of depth to the concept of demorcracy."

In Pakistan, 84% find democracy either 'very suitable' or 'suitable' for the country and on the other hand, 60% 'strongly agree' or just 'agree' with army rule. So, what does this mean? Professor D'Souza explains, "In Pakistan, because the Constitution has continuously been abrogated or suspended, people have actually begun to be cynical about political institutions. So, what the finding show is that on the one hand there is a surging aspiration for democracy and on the other hand, because they have seen the institutions being mauled by the elites, therefore they are cynical about the legitimacy of those institutions."  

But what about where democracy is almost a family affair with some elite families holding positions of power in every generation? Professor of Politics at Lahore University of Management Sciences, Mohammed Waseem says, "In elections, they tend to vote for a party, so that they can identify themselves clearly with it. So, you see, if there is some kind of icon or symbol on top of a party with whom the people identify, then these people from certain families may repeatedly be in power." But he feels that people move beyond personalities and vote for the party.

In India, the Gandhi family has been in power for years now - either upfront or behind the scenes and that's mainly because of Indira Gandhi's charisma, which has outlived her, even so many years after her death, says Preofessor D'Souza.

But political dynasties are not the chief criteria - it's actually the vast diversity of population found in South Asia, who want both, development and liberty. Professor Yadav says that, the irony is that many studies have shown that democracy is not expected to deliver development because if one wants only development, then democracy is not required - China and Singapore prove this. But in the process of development, what kind of benefit goes to whom - that's what a democracy has got to decide, and that's why it is so important.