Opinion - Editorials   

Democracy and Development

THE ANNUAL HUMAN Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme once again presents a mixed picture of where the nations of the world are in economic and social well-being. The trends in human development during the 1990s, as measured by the human development index (HDI), show that amidst the improvement that has taken place in many countries (including India) there are large spots of deterioration. Countries in central and east Europe and sub-Saharan Africa are at a lower level of human development today than they were a decade ago. The prospects of a dramatic improvement in the future do not look very bright either. In the HDR's assessment, Governments are not doing enough to attain the U.N.'s seven millennium development goals on hunger, education and health, which heads of state endorsed two years ago. More than 120 countries with 40 per cent of the world's population are growing too slowly to be able to halve poverty by 2015. Contrary to the assessment made by other agencies, the HDR sees India too as falling far behind in achieving the goal on reduction of extreme poverty as also on infant and under-five mortality. This should temper any satisfaction India may take in its steady but slow improvement in the HDI during the past decade, with its ranking among 135 countries having improved six places since 1990.

Deepening democracy for human development is the main theme of the 2002 report, a subject that does not lend itself easily to quantification which is what the HDR has always been good at. Yet, the disappointment with democratic governance from the perspective of human development has rarely been addressed as frontally as in the latest HDR. It is a fact that the substantial increase during the 1990s in the number of countries opting for multi-party democracy has not led to a corresponding improvement in social and economic outcomes. This does not mean that authoritarian regimes do a better job — for what they are worth statistical analyses do not show any correspondence between authoritarianism and development. But the more important point, even if it seems self-evident, is that democratic governance facilitates human development only when institutions are accountable to people and the people themselves can fully participate (beyond voting in elections) in local and national debates and are involved in decision-making. In this respect, addressing the "democratic deficits" in some practices (money power in politics and corruption in governance) and strengthening institutions (the media and civil society) are critical for building a virtuous cycle between governance and human development, a cycle in which one strengthens the other. The HDR sees addressing the democratic deficit in the international institutions — especially the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation — as an important part of this process, since these institutions are witness to a replication, at the global level, of the imbalances present in the decision-making processes within nations. The problems with the structure and functioning of some of the global organisations are well-known but when they are made by institutions which have been largely marginalised (i.e. the U.N.) they are more likely to be interpreted as a demand to be given a seat at the table.

The HDR's need to reduce everything to a number does affect the quality of its analysis. Only 80 of the 140 countries which hold multi-party elections are categorised as "fully democratic" by one measure. The numerical scale of democracy on which countries are placed is one developed by a U.S. university and based on an arbitrary selection of categories. The HDR admits that there are objective (like the voter turnout rates) and subjective indicators of democratic governance. But the use of many subjective measures developed by a variety of institutions — university departments, the World Bank and non-governmental organisations — can lead to very peculiar listings. In freedom of the press, for example, India is ranked lower than Burkina Faso, Mongolia and Bolivia. Numbers are best left out of discussions of issues such as the quality of institutions in a democracy.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Democracy and Development
• Trouble in Jharkhand
• The new President
• Ending destitution
• Grab the opportunity
• Extend facilities
• Electoral reforms
• Make a beginning
• Centre must apologise
• A lame excuse
• Quota for disadvantaged
• No response

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu