Tag: dictatorship

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2118] Of less variance for democratic states versus autocracies

Just weeks ago, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad contrasted the development of China and India. As reported, he praised the single-mindedness of the Chinese government in developing the country and ridiculed the Indian government for being far too democratic and not focusing enough on development. He went on to state that freedom hurts the economy.[1]

Art Harun, a columnist at The Malaysian Insider replied to this in his column[2] stating examples where democracies have been successful, contrary to the former Prime Minister’s assertion.[3] Zaidel Baharuddin, yet another The Malaysian Insider columnist jumped into the debate at his blog by defending the former Prime Minister, stating that “starving hard working farmers in India who has to fight drought and fertilizer prices don’t give a damn about freedom of speech or expression.”[4] Art Harun took the chance to reply to the point and various other comments too diverse to cite here[5] by arguing that economic prosperity does not have to be mutually exclusive with respect to freedom as well as adding that they are other factors that need to be considered in the determination of economic development, like leadership.[6]

Indeed but all those discussions are gradually veering off course from the point the former Prime Minister made, about how democracies perform poorly against less democratic states in terms of economic development.

This point is not necessarily true. If one wants to make that point, one cannot choose two data points and make a conclusion out of it. That is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. A better way is to take all of democracies and all of authoritarian states and compare them.

There are prominent studies on this. One important study states that while the existence of democracy or dictatorship does not affect the mean growth rate of economic development, it does affect its variance. That means there are less consistency in economic growth under authoritarian regime compared to democracies. Adam Przeworski wrote an important paper on the issue:

Political regimes have no impact on the growth of total income when countries are observed across the entire spectrum of conditions. Contrary to widespread concerns, democracies do not reduce the rate of investment even in poor countries. It appears that when countries are poor there is little governments can do, so that it makes little difference for economic growth whether rulers are elected or hold power by force. In wealthier countries, patterns of growth are no longer the same. Dictatorships rely on the growth of labor force and on keeping wages low, while democracies pay higher wages, use labor more effectively, and benefit more from technical progress. But while growth under wealthier dictatorships is more labor-extensive and labor-exploitative than under wealthier democracies, so that functional distributions of income are different, the average rates of growth of total income are about the same.

Thus, we did not find a shred of evidence that democracy need be sacrificed on the altar of development. The few countries that developed spectacularly during the past fifty years were as likely to achieve this feat under democracy as under dictatorship. On the average, total incomes grew at almost identical rates under the two regimes. Moreover, per capita incomes grow faster in democracies. The reason is that democracies have lower rates of population growth. In spite of rapid diffusion of medical advances, death rates remain somewhat higher under dictatorship and life expectancies are much shorter. Population grows faster under dictatorships because they have higher birth rates, and the difference in birth rates is due to higher fertility, not to age structures of the population. [Democracy and Economic Development. Adam Przeworski. New York University. Retrieved on November 30 2009]

Almeida and Ferreira in 2002 probably made a more direct case:

Less-democratic countries do seem to have variable growth rates and policies than more democratic ones. This corroborates the conjecture of Sah (1991). Possible explanatoins for this fact can be found in Rodrik (1999a) and in Sah and Stiglitz (1991).

The evidence presented in this paper strongly supports Sah’s conjecture. The empirical results are unaffected by many robustness and specification checks. The results are not sensitive to specific time periods, to different democracy indicies, to different econometric procedures, or to model specification. The results hold even after controlling for many plausible determinants of growth rates and democracy indicies, including the usual variables from the empirical growth literature, time dummies and country-fixed effects, GDP, natural resource dependence, and OECD membership.

The greater stability of growth rates and policy measures among democratic countries adds to the existing list of desirable features of democracies, such as the positive correlations between democracy and per capita GDP levels, between democracy and primary schooling (Barro, 1999) and between wages and democracy indices (Rodrik, 1999b). Our evidence also corroborates the common view that some autocratic countries have had the most impressive growth experiences. However, since the worst experiences are also associated with autocratic countries, in an ex-ante sense, autocracy is no prescription for growth. [Democracy and the variability of economic performance. Heictor Almeida. Daniel Ferreira. Economics and Politics. Volume 14. November 2002]

Of note is the relationship between wages and democracy indices as reported by Rodrik. People in the Najib administration may well take that into account.

Anyway, at the Library of Economic and Liberty, economist Byran Caplan, who introduces Almeida and Ferreira, reproduces the following diagram to drive the point home:[7]

Some right reserved.

Autocracies are represented on the left side and democracies on the right side. Note the variances and the means.

Bottom line is, there is more risk to having an authoritarian regime than a democratic one, in terms of economic development. If one wants to be more certain about achieving success, democracy is one of the ingredients one must consider.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Dr Mahathir singled out India as an Asian country that “made the mistake of being too democratic” and compared it unfavourably with China’s authoritarian regime.

“India, of course, will grow, but more slowly than China. It has the numbers but is not making use of them well.”

He expanded on the theme at a press conference later, saying that people “don’t understand the limits of democracy”.

“Democracy can be a hindrance to progress because you spend so much time politicking that you don’t have time to develop your country.

“In China, there’s not much politics. So, they can spend more time developing their country.

“In a democracy, everybody has a voice, everybody has a vote. But, in Malaysia, they sell their votes, which is not good at all.” [Dr M: A lot to learn from China. New Straits Times. November 17 2009]

[2] —[Enemies of the State. Art Harun. The Malaysian Insider. November 19 2009]

[3] — Yes. According to DrM, the Westerners are wrong for making democracy and freedom the cornerstone of progress. The British are so free they go on strike every other day. Well, who sent people to the moon in 1969? Which part of the world had an industrial revolution? Why have Russia, East Germany, Romania et al embraced democracy and freedom? From whom did we buy our Scorpene? Why Glasnost and Perestroika? So the people know the limits of freedom and how to behave themselves properly and in accordance with the Government’s code of behavioural acceptance?

And finally, according to Dr M, apart from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will lead the Asian charge.

Which made me thinking, were Japan, South Korea and Taiwan governed by a benevolent absolutist government? Do the people in these countries know the limits of democracy? If so, to what extent? And who impose and define these limits on them? [Enemies of the State. Art Harun. November 19 2009]

[4] — I’m pretty sure, those starving hard working farmers in India who has to fight drought and fertilizer prices don’t give a damn about freedom of speech or expression. It is those comfortably well paid lawyers with some extra time on their hands who are more concerned about these things and write about it.

Meaning, [b]efore you talk about democracy perhaps it is wise to first elevate the people’s (rakyat) quality of living, because like the maslow’s hierarchy of needs there are more important things to fulfill before they get to the self actualization level. [Sinatra_Z – An Answer. Zaidel Baharuddin. November 20 2009]

[5] — Ahiruddin Attan for instance compared the more democratic Malaysia, which is behind the economic development curve with the less democratic Singapore, which is ahead:

I don’t think the Malaysian Insider would publish such a piece. Good try, though, Z. I do agree with you (and Dr M). We don’t need to look so far, just across the Causeway. We are way more democratic than Singapore, and look at how many of us idolize the Republic for its progress and wealth. Given the choice, however, I’d stay put here, Z. [Art Harun vs The Lipas Man. Ahiruddin Attan. November 20 2009]

[6] — My question is, why can’t we have them all? Especially in a democracy, where we elect our so called leaders to look after our well being as members of a State?

I think in this day and age, it is downright insulting — and not to mention, pathetic — for any leader to say to the people that I will give you food on your table in abundance but you would have to shut up, toe the line and do as I say, all the time and under all circumstances.

For a leader to lay the blame on the people which he or she ruled — for not understanding the limits of democracy — as a reason for his or her failure to achieve development and progress does not speak much of his or her leadership.

A comparison was made with Singapore in one of the comments. It was pointed out Singapore did not have much of a democracy and they progress well. But that does not prove that Singapore progressed well because it was less democratic.

 

Hasn’t it occurred to any of us that Singapore progressed because of the mentality and work ethics of its leaders? [Freedom lifts us up to where we belong. Art Harun. The Malaysian Insider. November 24 2009]

[7] —[Democracy, Dictatorship, and the Variance of Growth. Byran Caplan. Library of Economics and Liberty. October 2 2009]

Categories
Activism ASEAN Liberty Photography

[1398] Of vigil for Burma

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

This was from yesterday’s evening vigil for Burma, at the base of the Petronas Twin Towers, which was joined by hundreds.

More at Metblogs KL.

Categories
ASEAN Economics Liberty

[1397] Of the most moral action is to integrate Myanmar into the global economy

What is happening in Myanmar is nothing short of tragedy. Amid outrage, calls for actions against the junta of Myanmar could be loudly heard. Yet, what action is the most moral of all?

The basis for action is simple: conscience calls it. Forceful suppression that leads to death invokes strong emotions. These emotions as well as the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, for many, lead to one goal: halt the killing. Those with stronger inclination demand absolute respect for liberty and restoration of democracy in Myanmar. While the objectives are noble, it does not prescribe how one achieves that goal with intact moral.

There are those that favor wide economic sanction against the country in hope to pressure to junta out of power or at least, into executing meaningful democratic reforms. I am not too warm to that idea; there is little to achieve by isolating an already isolated country. More often than not, such isolation hurts the people while tyrannical regimes continue to hold power, as proven in North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Zimbabwe and no less, in Myanmar. Sanctions reduce the opportunities for the people from lift themselves out of poverty by preventing them from riding on the wave of globalization.

Some have gone farther down the line by calling for direct intervention in Myanmar, just like what happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The moral dilemma of this suggestion, for a libertarian at least, while viewing it through the lens of state sovereignty, is glaring.

Transgression of liberty by itself is enough for a libertarian to act. I however have yet to read a convincing thought specifically forged as a basis of a foreign policy that is capable truly respecting state sovereignty. The reason is, libertarianism is an individual-centric philosophy.

Perhaps, the safest position that appeals to stability for a libertarian is to consider the state as an individual and from that assumption, adhere to non-aggression principal. This translates into non-interference policy. That unfortunately will only justify the stance that ASEAN: relative inaction. Taking a step back, there seems to be conflict of moral: surely, inaction in the face of tyranny is immoral. As an old saying goes, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Nevertheless, the trade-off between stability and impeccable moral is real.

In contrast, hawkish libertarians will ignore state boundaries to promote individual liberty. They will not grant the state the same rights granted to individuals for a very simple but appealing reasoning: a state is not an individual. In isolated incident where consistency of thoughts is suspended, the clear promotion individual liberty leads to the best of all outcomes imagined by libertarians and others that seek the goal of a liberal and democratic Myanmar. Rarely however does such policy is executed in the public domain by instead it will act as a precedent for future actions. Worse, this rationale will lead to a highly unstable world. Many libertarians that support the war in Iraq subscribe to this view. Various states will constantly be at war, at the slightest violation of individual liberty; there will be no such thing as internal issues and such, this erode the idea of the state.

Through this, I hope I have helped illustrate how morally, executing an action is harder than a simply call for noble action. Despite that, there is a path that stays better than isolation and direct or indirect intervention. That path is active engagement.

The countries that I leverage against the junta are countries with considerable ties with Myanmar. Among these countries are China, India and Russia. Countries with have no tie with Myanmar have little influence over it. Through extrapolation, it is only rationale to project that the more integrated the Myanmar economy is to the global economy, the more leverage the world will have over the government of Myanmar. Through this, Myanmar will have to be sensitive to international opinion, lest Myanmar will lose the huge benefits it enjoys from global trade. The fact that the countries that have significant relationship with Myanmar do not exactly hold sympathy for liberty does not help: these countries have little reason to pressure Myanmar to cease its oppression when those countries themselves suppress individual liberty.

Integration also increases the effectiveness of future threat of sanction. As mentioned earlier, the act of isolating an already isolated country is useless: the marginal benefit of such policy has gone over the peak for Myanmar. Integration and by extension, freer trade between Myanmar and the world will grant Myanmar the benefits of economic globalization. Under reasonable autarky that Myanmar currently is, it has nothing to lose from sanction. Under reasonable open market atmosphere, Myanmar has something to lose from sanction.

More importantly, the people of Myanmar will enjoy the benefits of freer trade and the march towards liberal democracy. Truly, there is greater moral here than further sanction or direct intervention, if one wishes to keep the idea of state sovereignty intact.

For a normative model to be successful, it has to include a working carrot and stick model. Under the current setup, there is no carrot. Integration is the carrot and once the carrot is out, the stick will become effect. Without the carrot, the effect of the stick is reduced, as what is happening at the moment in the largest countries on mainland Southeast Asia.

The conclusion suggests this: for ASEAN to have a greater influence over the government of Myanmar, ASEAN, especially the more prosperous states, need to do more to integrate Myanmar into the regional economy that is AFTA.

Categories
ASEAN Liberty

[1387] Of for Myanmar, recurring nightmare

I hope that I am wrong but from the look of it, it has begun:

BANGKOK, Sept. 26 — The government of Myanmar began a violent crackdown today after tolerating more than a month of ever-larger protests in cities around the country, clubbing and tear- gassing protesters, firing shots into the air and arresting hundreds of the monks who are at the heart of the demonstrations.

The Reuters news agency quoted hospital and monastery sources as saying two monks and a civilian were killed and several people were wounded in the crackdown. [Police Clash with Monks in Myanmar. New York Times. September 26 2007]

Where is ASEAN? Busy drafting that little charter of yours?

Inaction would signal this: the worthlessness of the ASEAN Charter, for all its grand — and most likely empty — promises to ensure human rights.

Categories
ASEAN Liberty Politics & government Society

[1383] Of support the protest in Myanmar to solve the issue surrounding Burmese refugees

I was in Bangkok a several months before the Thai military launched a coup d’tat against former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. During my time there, I witnessed processions at various parts of the city where individuals wore yellow colored attire, signaling support for the monarch and more loudly, expressing strong discontent against the former Prime Minister. The protests were not at full steam yet then but like a rolling snowball, it gained momentum and the rest is history. The same trend is happening in Myanmar except that the color is orange: Buddhist monks are marching across Myanmar protesting against the Myanmar junta. The gravity of this development cannot be understated and I wish for it to develop into something bigger, in the name of self-interest.

The protests by monks have been going on for weeks now. It all started with fuel price hike announced by the junta in August 19.[1] That protests were forcefully broken up by the authority and a number of participants of another protest on September 5, including monks and civilians, were beaten up. This enrages the monks and that further prompted larger protests against the junta.[2]

The size of the protests have been increasing and it is gaining support from the public. From a group of hundreds of monks[3], the size swelled to over 1,000 at various places[4] and on Saturday, 10,000 people took part, with almost half of the participants are from the general public.[5] The protests show no sign of relenting and the military has been quiet, seeking refuge within the new capital of Myanmar. The new capital is isolating the junta government from public protest, perhaps, much like the Malaysian administrative center of Putrajaya is detached from common Malaysians.

AFP. Fair use.

From protest against fuel hike, it is slowly turning into protests by the monkshood and at the moment, demand for democracy. This is proven when the monks visited Aung San Suu Kyi, an strong advocate of democracy in Myanmar, whom is currently placed under house arrest by the junta.[6]

In the Buddhist Myanmar, monks stand on a special position within the society: monks are the path toward better reincarnation in the next life. If the monks refuse to perform their tasks, opportunities for better reincarnation for common religious Buddhists diminished.[7] The social implication is huge. Furthermore, with monks and advocates of democracy joining hand in hand, sometimes by voicing clear ambition for a democratic Myanmar, it is hard to dismiss the latest protest as a non-event.

I do hope that this development continues with its amplification. It may lead to a larger crackdown by the junta, which could be ugly but it may also lead to democratic change. The main reason for my support for the protest however is more about self-interest rather than love for democracy. I have a love-hate relationship with democracy but for Myanmar, I recognize democracy as something better than the current autocratic military rule for Malaysia. But could Malaysia gain from a democratic Myanmar?

In a list of countries with the most illegal migrants in Southeast Asia, Malaysia probably sits close to the top if the number one does not belong to us yet. There are approximately 27 million Malaysians in this country[8] and there are close to 3 millions aliens of which approximately a quarter of them are illegal immigrants.[9] Immigrants which many Malaysians find faults wit originate from among others Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

The flow from Myanmar results from the country’s poor economic performance and a number of political issues. In Malaysia, the issue of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar remains unsolved and has caused Malaysians to irrationally become hateful or at least distrustful of the Rohingya. This is proven by the hostility shown when a Rohingya couple was accused by many Malaysians, including by the mainstream media of kidnapping a Malay child regardless of proof, perhaps resorting to racism. Furthermore, Malaysians including the authority are quick to attribute the increase in crime rate to lower class immigrants — not necessarily the Rohingya or any other ethnic groups from Myanmar — despite the fact that most crimes are proportionately committed by the locals themselves. Even the legislature had contemplated to restrict foreign laborers’ liberty in hope to control crime, showing a hint of xenophobia, making foreign laborers as scapegoat.

A democratic, peaceful and stable Myanmar could lay a path towards economic prosperity. That could reduces the push factors for Myanmar immigrants and if I may, limit attraction differential between Malaysia and Myanmar and thus, lower the number of immigrants from Myanmar looking for better safety and better opportunity in Malaysia. For any government that wishes to solve the social and economic issues presented by the Rohingyas and other Myanmar economic or political refugees in Malaysia, or simply not fully committed to free flow of labor, the act of encouraging meaningful stability in Myanmar is crucial. In my humble opinion, ASEAN has a role to play towards that end.

As the protests grow in size and number, rumors are running around that the junta is preparing to act against the protesters. ASEAN must be prepared to moral condemn any harsh action done against peaceful protests. In fact, this preparedness must be made known to the junta now as a stiff stick. This preparedness will go a long way in solving the immigration problem originating from Myanmar that Malaysia has to face. Indeed, Malaysia is no the only country that has to solve this issue. Thailand which lays immediately to the east of Myanmar is another country that shares Malaysian concern.

Alas, believing that ASEAN is act for the peaceful protestors, in the name democracy, is probably a joke that I unwittingly made. Governments of Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore themselves, are not known to be defenders of freedom of expression. Add Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam into the equation, we could reasonable expect ASEAN to keep its mouth shut.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — The monk’s activities have given new life to a protest movement that began a month ago after the government raised fuel prices, sparking demonstrations against policies that are causing economic hardship. [10,000 protest against Myanmar gov’t. AP via Yahoo! News. September 22 2007]

[2] — The campaign was launched after the Pokkaku incident on September 6, in which monks were beaten and humiliated by security officials and pro-regime thugs. Until an apology is received, the monks say they will refuse to accept alms, donations or robes from anyone associated with the regime. [Burma’s Regime Should Apologize to the Monks. The Irrawaddy. September 19 2007]

[3] — YANGON: Over 300 monks on Tuesday marched peacefully in Yangon, chanting Buddhist prayers in protest at Myanmar’s military regime, in a major sign of defiance against the junta. [Over 300 monks march through Myanmar’s main city. AFP via Channelnewsasia. September 18 2007]

[4] — Radio Free Asia reported police fired teargas and warning shots to disperse 1,000 monks in the port city of Sittwe, 350 miles west of the capital of Yangon, formerly known as Rangoon. [Myanmar monks defy government with marches. UPI via ScienceDaily. September 19 2007]

[5] — In the central city of Mandalay, a crowd of 10,000 people, including some 4,000 Buddhist monks, marched , witnesses said, in one of the largest demonstrations against the country’s repressive military regime since a democratic uprising in 1988. [10,000 protest against Myanmar gov’t. AP via Yahoo! News. September 22 2007]

[6] — YANGON, Myanmar – The wave of anti-government demonstrations sweeping Myanmar touched the doorstep of democracy heroine Aung San Suu Kyi Saturday as Buddhist monks marched past her home and said they were greeted by the detained political leader.

The encounter, described by a monk to a crowd of anti-government protesters and confirmed by several witnesses, ties together a month-long movement of protest against the ruling military’s economic policies with the country’s decades-old uphill struggle for democracy.

[…]

Suu Kyi, 62, has been under detention for more than 11 of the last 18 years, and continuously since May 2003. She is the leader of the National League for Democracy party, which won a 1990 general election but was not allowed to take power by the military. [Monks allowed past Suu Kyi’s house. AP via Yahoo News! September 23 2007]

[7] — The boycott, in which monks refuse to accept alms and offerings from well-wishers, is taken extremely seriously in the deeply devout country.

Without such rites, a Buddhist loses all chance of attaining nirvana, or release from the cycle of rebirth. [Buddhist monks stage protest in Myanmar. Aung Hla Tun. Reuters via The Scotman. September 17 2007]

[8] — Department of Statistics, Malaysia. Key Statistics. Extracted on September 22 2007.

[9] — Malaysia is home to 2.7 million foreign workers, including 700,000 there illegally. Caning of criminals is under scrutiny after a video of a prison caning was put on the internet. [Fury at Malaysia’s caning of immigrants. The Scotsman. August 8 2007]