Nations need democracy for stability and not to achieve economic growth, the Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi opined at the World Economic Forum held last week in Addis Ababa.

The Prime Minister was quoted as saying that:

“There is no direct relationship between economic growth and democracy, historically or theoretically…..I don’t believe in bedtime stories, contrived arguments linking economic growth with democracy.”

However, he indicated that democracy is necessary to keep diverse African nations united. In fact, democracy could be the ‘only option of keeping relationship within nations sane’, he said, according to the news brief by Bloomberg’s correspondent William Davison.

Meles Zenawi made the remarks in the ‘Accelerating Infrastructure Investments’ session, of the World Economic Forum, on Friday, where he was a panelist, among others, with former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Gordon Brown.

This came a day after the Prime Minister made a curious remark, in the Strengthening Africa’s Leadership session of the Forum, that:

‘Africa needs leadership with clear plans and priorities to overcome structural problems focusing exclusively on [inclusive] economic growth. We need leadership with perseverance to continue on the chosen path when the going gets rough. And if there is going to be transformation, the going will get rough’.

What’s the Premier saying?

To understand what the Premier is saying, we shall breakdown the issue into four questions:

* Is democracy a necessary condition (a pre-requisite) for economic growth?
* Is economic growth a necessary condition (a pre-requisite) for democracy?
* Does a democracy lead or facilitate an economic growth?
* Does economic growth lead or facilitate democratization?

Meles Zenawi’s remarks at the World Economic Forum appeared to be a rejection of any link between democracy and economic growth, at least to readers who enticed me to write this brief comment. 

Perhaps, the key word in his remark is: ‘direct relationship’. Thus, what the Meles Zenawi is really saying is that: Democracy is not a pre-requisite for economic growth and the vice versa. Again, one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other.

But what about an indirect relationship?

It seems he believes that: Economic development could help the emergence of a democratic polity, while democracy by itself won’t necessarily deliver a development-oriented social structure. Though, democracy could help speedup the development process.  

At least, that is what one gathers from his speeches elsewhere and publications of his party. One of such cases is the ‘African Development: Dead Ends and New Beginnings’, a draft paper deemed to be his PhD thesis, that he presented at a forum in Columbia University back in 2006.

In the paper (which declares ‘preliminary draft’ and ‘not for quotation’, but I decided to quote anyway), the Premier makes the following remarks in a section titled ‘Democracy and the Developmental State’:

Even if a developmental state was to be solely concerned about accelerating growth, it would have to build the high social capital that is vital for its endeavors. It would have to stamp out patronage and rent-seeking. These are the very same things that create the basis for democratic politics that is relatively free from patronage. A successful developmental state would thus be very well placed to be both developmental and democratic……..

Most of what a developmental state has to do in order to be a developmental state are also the things that need to be done for a stable democracy to emerge in a poor developing country. The critical additional step required is to establish a solid developmental coalition to govern the country democratically. The basis for doing that are those steps that a developmental state will have to take any way. There is therefore no reason why a developmental state should necessarily become undemocratic. There is every reason to suggest that if a developmental state were to also be democratic the "hegemonic" nature of its development project would be achieved faster and held more deeply because it would emerge from free debate and dialogue. A democratic developmental state is thus likely to be even more effective as a developmental state than an undemocratic one.

In previous parts of this chapter we have shown that a stable democracy can emerge in a poor country and what the requirements are for such a polity to emerge. They largely coincide with the requirements for the emergence of a developmental state. Where the circumstances for the emergence of a developmental state do not exist, the circumstances for the emergence of a stable democracy in a poor country do not exist. One can therefore conclude that the prospects of a stable democracy in a poor country are intimately related to the establishment of a developmental state and achieving accelerated development. In poor developing countries, a developmental state, accelerated development and stable democracies appear to be parts of the same package.

The only exception one can make is that accelerated development and developmental state can occur in a non-democratic polity. But that would not change the basic conclusion. Where the circumstances for a developmental state do not exist the chances for a stable democracy to emerge are indeed very remote. Where they exist while there is no guarantee for democracy, there is a reasonable chance for a developmental and democratic state to emerge. In the end, therefore, the chances of a stable democracy in a poor country are related intimately to the emergence of a developmental state and accelerated development associated with it. [the formatting is mine]

I am not sure if the Premier’s last week remarks are entirely consistent with those on his paper.

Yet, a cumulative reading of the two conveys the Premier’s view of economic development: That, the developmental journey doesn’t require democratization, though that would be a plus.

But what is Meles’ view on the path to democratization?

Roughly speaking, as noted in my previous post, there are two perspectives: The ‘preconditionist’(a.k.a., ‘sequentialist’ or ‘gradualist’) and the ‘universalists’.

Scholars in the first camp, such as Fareed Zakaria, argue that:

successful Democratization is difficult, if not impossible, where constitutional liberalism did not get hold. A state should exhibit and experience some degree of respect for individual freedoms and the rule of law so as to be suitable for democracy. The development of these features, in turn, requires a capitalist economic development. The enlargement of the middle class and business community would naturally accompany such types of economic development and it would also induce the regime to relax its control on some basic freedoms, to enhance the effectiveness and autonomy of public institution and more adherences to rule of law.

On the other hand, the ‘universalists’ claim:

democracy can emerge in all sorts of ways and settings. The structural preconditions and “the gradual liberal path” of Democratization, claimed by the contending perspective, are devoid of historical basis and logical validity. The development of democracy in the west, or anywhere else, did not take peaceful, or straightforward, stage-like progression. “The political back-story of most democracies is one of struggle, conflict, and even violence’’. Thus, Democratization is bound to have ups and downs and states should engage in the process sooner than later.

So, where do we place Meles Zenawi?

Obviously, he doesn’t subscribe to the ‘universalists’ view that ‘democracy can emerge in all sorts of ways and settings’.

But, does he concur to the Fareed Zakaria et al view that an economic development gradually leads to democratization? One may answer in the affirmative based on the Premier’s and his party’s statements elsewhere and the paper quoted above.

However, his comment at the World Economic Forum appears to dismiss it as ‘bed time stories’.

Of course, Meles Zenawi doesn’t need to agree with either perspectives – indeed, they are not the only viewpoints out there.

But what can we  say about his view on the path of democratization?

Can we safely conclude that he thinks: An undemocratic polity can maintain its character despite the level of economic growth it achieves? Thus, is the emergence of democracy solely dependent on the conscious decision of the relevant political actors?

Or, am I missing something here?

***********

 [Transcripts of the PM’s speech in both sessions will be posted in this blog in the coming days.]

You can find the above quoted articles on:
* Ethiopia’s Meles Says No Link Between Democracy, Growth (Bloomberg)
* Meles Zenawi: A leader must be prepared to say ‘No’ | World Economic Forum
* Democracy and the Developmental State (Meles Zenawi)
* On the Arab revolt | Are they ready for liberal democracy?