A Critical Analysis

4489 WordsAug 30, 201318 Pages
“The more well to do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy” – Seymour Martin Lipset A Critical Analysis Introduction "Economic development makes democracy possible" asserts the U.S. State Department, in reference tothe highly influential argument: that, poor nations must develop economically before they can be democracies. It rests on a rational notion, put forward by political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset and others five decades ago, that economic growth creates the necessary preconditions for democracy by expanding literacy, creating a secure middle class, and nurturing cosmopolitan attitudes. If dictatorships die and democracies emerge randomly with regard to development, is it still possible that there would be more democracies among wealthy countries than among poor ones? If one is to take Lipset at his own word– “The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances it will sustain democracy” –then even if the emergence of democracy is independent of the level of development, the chance that such a regime will survive is greater if it has been established in an affluent country. Therefore, one would expect to observe democracies to appear randomly with regard to levels of development, but to die in the poorer countries and survive in the wealthier ones. This critical analysis is a conversation among different learnings on democracy and the relationship between economic growth and democracy. For that reason, I have tried to describe the co relationship between economic development, democracyand sustainability of democracy by encompassing formal theoretical arguments put forward by scholars combined with statistical data/resultsfor empirical evidence and case studies in an effort to come up with understandings or patterns governing economic growth and democracy with a holistically comparative political approach. The

More about A Critical Analysis

Open Document