Abstract
There are many economies that have developed at a significant pace, such as Japan, and many economies that are flagging behind these countries, such as India. Is this development hindered or encouraged by internal and/or external factors? The question remains as to why certain countries are developing faster than others needs to explored, which is what the first half of this essay will do. An analysis will be conducted into how the role of the state, stimuluses for modernisation, social structure and cultural factors play their part in either hindering or encouraging development in these countries.
The interference of the United States in Islamic countries has caused nothing more than persistent sectarian fighting, political instability, and internal rest in the region. The second half of this essay will explore the cultural and traditional factors that prohibit the development of democracy in the Middle East, and why the United States’ failure to understand these factors has caused nothing more than unrest in the region.
1. McClelland argues that economic growth can be achieved because external factors, such as favoruable opportunities for trade, unusual natural resources, or conquests have opened up new markets or produced internal political stability (54). This essay will argue that both internal and external factors play an equally important role in the lag of development in developing countries. There will be an examination of how these factors have played a role in the lag of development in India and Japan. An analysis will be conducted into how the role of the state, stimuluses for modernisation, social structure and cultural factors play their part in either hindering or encouraging development in these countries.
The role that social structure, or class, plays in economic development is highly substantial, but other factors need to be considered too as capitalism can create substantial wealth among different societies. Marx blamed British rule in an area of India called Hindostan for destroying an old world in India (64). Marx suggested that British rule in India helped to break down the entire framework for Indian society and that the current misery of many people in Hindostan can be blamed on the pain that the British inflicted upon India (64). For example, Marx suggests that the British were to blame for the lowest classes in India losing the spinning wheel and causing them to lose many valuable possessions that included golden ornaments (64). Marx accused British capitalism of destroying small social organisations like the village system that enabled small trade unions to represent the working classes and protect them from substantial changes as part of an expanding capitalist system (65). Because the British were responsible for destroying family communities based on domestic industry and on hand-weaving and hand-spinning power, the British destroyed civilised areas of India and are responsible for initiating a social revolution there that will change the class structure (Marx 65). Though social structure can play a substantial role in causing the development of modernisation in societies such as Japan and India, it cannot be done through a social revolution that Marx wanted to encourage. Capitalism can be developed in different ways that can create wealth and happiness for the greatest numbers of people.
In the case of many Western nations, cultural factors and the stimuluses for modernisation certainly linked together. German sociologist, Max Weber, was able to link Protestantism together with the spirit of capitalism as the Protestant values of the entrepreneurial spirit helped initiate the institutions of capitalism (McClelland 55). Many entrepreneurs were motivated by a desire to implement the kingdom of God to Earth sooner by expanding their businesses and bringing about a greater happiness (McClelland 65). The spirit of capitalism and industrialisation, both of which helped initiate the Industrial Revolution as a stimulus for modernisation, led to high levels of achievement and economic development in the Western world (McClelland 55). It was this high level of development that contributed towards a significant level of development in Japan (McClelland 55). Cultural factors were definitely one of the most significant factors that helped initiate modernisation and economic development in Japan. In the cases of India and Japan, achievement and motivation is expressed in the form of literature as the stories told in these countries can help influence contemporary political events for those children in the earliest grades (McClelland 58). McClelland discovered that when achievement rates for literacy are linked to the growth of electrical output in Japan and India, India fares much better due to the amount of electricity produced and in literacy levels among children compared to Japan in between 1925 and 1950 (58). This demonstrates that cultural factors can play a significant part in acting as a stimulus for modernisation and sustained economic development in many countries.
A change in cultural attitudes can also play a significant part in helping to influence the stimulus for modernisation in many countries. McClelland argues that the advancement of women’s legal and social rights makes a country much more developed as women can play a significant role in helping to influence future generations in different societies (67). This is because mothers can help their sons reach high literacy achievement levels (McClelland 67). McClelland suggests that it is the encouragement of new ideas, such as advancing the role women play in society, which create further stimuluses for economic growth by joining workforces that were traditionally dominated by men (67). According to McClelland, this role that the state can play in helping to stimulate modernisation has been a critical factor in helping to influence development in Japan and can also be applied to developing countries like China and India (67). McClelland attacks the governments of under-developed countries, such as India, for interfering too much in the development of their economies as the governments of these countries force entrepreneurs to abide by rigid development countries that force businesses to develop ‘or else’ (67). This demonstrates how crucial the state truly is in helping to stimulate economic growth and modernisation as well as a change in cultural factors.
Nonetheless, the role of the state can certainly help play a substantial role in influencing cultural factors that can also affect stimuluses for modernisation and economic development in many other ways too. McClelland argues that countries whose states allowed for the development of a mass media that allowed freedom of expression were the countries that developed the fastest because public opinion helps to inform the development of society as opposed to moral or social institutions enrooted in tradition (60). When Tojo rose to power in Japan, Tojo tried to influence cultural factors that helped influence children’s thoughts in later life such as the literature that many children read (McClelland 62). McClelland discovered that children who had read literature before the rise of Tojo from 1925 onwards was concerned with encouraging literature that had little regard for the welfare of others and influenced children to seek power in order to influence economic development (62).
In conclusion, both internal and external factors of economic development can play an equally substantial role in creating the development of capitalism. If internal factors, such as internal political stability, are encouraged, then the state can play a substantial role in encouraging capitalism by developing a free press that encourages freedom of expression and allows entrepreneurs to have more influence over a country’s development rather than traditional norms rooted in government institutions. External factors, such as conditions that encourage the development of trade, are also equally important as they allow entrepreneurs to take advantage of those conditions and substantially develop a country. This is why countries such as Japan have been so successful and developed so rapidly because, with the exception of the rise of Tojo, governments in Japan have encouraged capitalism to rise due to cultural factors like the encouragement of reading among children that has led to high levels of achievement that would later encourage entrepreneurs to stimulate economic growth. Modernisation can act as a significant stimulus for economic growth as events, such as the Industrial Revolution, would lead to new ideas on how to innovate science and technology that would help expand businesses. Marx cannot entirely blame internal factors like political instability caused by British rule in India because this is not the only condition that leads to the expansion of capitalism in societies.
2. This essay will argue that the United States has completely failed to promote democracy in the Middle East due to persistent sectarian fighting, political instability, and internal rest in the region due to the United States’ failure to acknowledge the barriers that hinder the growth of democracy in these countries. There will be a discussion on which barriers cause democracy to struggle to develop in these countries. They include the persistence of traditional politics and cultural barriers.
First, it is important to classify what modernisation means to many societies. Modernisation is based on the idea of human progress (Inglehart and Welzel 486). Economic growth began to outpace population growth and gave rise to preindustrial capitalism in many different Western societies (Inglehart and Welzel 486). The role that science played in these societies enabled the intellectual power of institutions like the church to be challenged due to scientific revelations that challenged idea of divinity (Inglehart and Welzel 486). The Enlightenment era gave rise to ideas that suggested technological progress will provide humanity increasing control over human nature, giving rise to many intellectual philosophers like Karl Marx and Max Weber (Inglehart and Welzel 486). After the Second World War, the United States adopted its own modernisation theory that espoused underdevelopment in many countries was a hindrance to the spread of modernisation across the globe due to the traditional economic and cultural models that many countries still had (Inglehart and Welzel 486). Therefore, many countries needed to adopt ‘modern’ institutions in order to ‘catch up’ with other societies (Inglehart and Welzel 486). But the question remains as to why many Islamic societies have failed to ‘catch up’ with many of these Western societies by failing to ‘modernise’ to the same extent as countries like the United States. The type of democracy that the United States has imposed on countries in the past, such as Germany after the Second World War, is liberal democracy, whereby governments can be removed by voting them out of office (Lewis 52).
Tradition acts as one significant barrier to the development of democracy in many Islamic countries. Throughout the entire history of Islam, the chosen traditional method of rule has always been autocracy, which is associated with surveillance, repression and wealth-extraction made available to governments through modern technologies (Lewis 53). Many languages that are used in Islam, such as Arabic, Turkish or Persian, have no word for ‘citizen’ in their dictionaries, means that there is a persistent absence of participation in systems of government in these countries (Lewis 53). This makes it incredibly difficult for democracy to advance to a considerable degree in these countries.
Nevertheless, many Muslims began to wonder what they were doing wrong as opposed to Western societies (Lewis 54). Mirza Abu Talib Khan, a Muslim traveller who provided a detailed description of democracy in Great Britain in between 1798 and 1803, failed to be impressed by the noisy atmosphere of the House of Commons when MPs were attempting to make laws (Lewis 55). To many Muslims, the word ‘freedom’ as a political idea implied novelty, dating only from the time of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte (Lewis 55). The idea of freedom- understood as the ability to participate in the formation, the conduct, and the lawful removal and replacement of a democratically elected government- remained alien due to the trouble it would have brought to many autocratic rulers at the time (Lewis 55). The Ottoman Constitution of 1876 attempted to implement a parliament that would supply the ceremonial ratification of the sultan’s authority (Lewis 55). The problem with this Chamber though was that it started to develop a mind of its own when it demanded three ministers that were accused of specific charges should be brought to the Chamber to defend themselves (Lewis 55). The sultan dissolved this parliament (Lewis 55). Many countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms remain traditional autocracies to this day due to their preference for usage, custom and history as opposed to new ideas (Lewis 56). Even countries like Morocco and Jordan that have attempted to adopt liberal democracy fail to come anywhere close to this model of democracy (Lewis 56). This demonstrates how much of a failure the development of democracy has been in certain countries due to Islamic tradition struggling to adapt to democratic values.
Nonetheless, traditional Islamic barriers are not the only factor that has blocked the development of democracy in these countries. Cultural barriers have played a significant role in preventing democracy from develop in Islamic countries. Islam has always considered Mohammed to be their ruler as well as their prophet which shows that Islam has always been associated with cult and power (Lewis 61). Christian states have been able to allow for the separation of religion and the state due to centuries of persecution that many Christians have faced (Lewis 62). Ever since Christianity was made the official religion of Rome during the rule of Emperor Constantine, a distinction was soon made between spiritual and temporal powers (Lewis 62). Islamic civilisation has produced a wealth of theological, philosophical and juridical literature on almost every aspect of the state, its powers and its functions (Lewis 62). Nowhere in that literature is a discussion about the separation between religious and temporal powers (Lewis 62). The words that are used for ‘secular’ and ‘secularism’ are nothing more than loanwords (Lewis 62). Jurists and many Muslim writers are perfectly aware of the distinction between the state and religion, but this fails to correspond to the dichotomy expressed in Western pairs of terms such as ‘spiritual’ and ‘temporal’ (Lewis 62). Like when Christians experienced a stage in their evolution referred to as the Enlightenment, Lewis argues that there is no reason as to why Muslims cannot experience a similar event in their own evolution, but that they should not be forced to nor should they follow the Western Enlightenment (62). Indeed, Turkey remains the only country that has successfully ensured that there is a separation of the state and religion through its constitution laws that declare Turkey to be a secular republic (Lewis 62). This demonstrates how slow the development of democracy has been in Islamic countries and that is why the United States is completely failing to understand that by trying to enforce democracy upon these countries, it is causing nothing more than persistent sectarian fighting, political instability, and internal rest in the region that it causing ISIS to rise.
As Lewis suggests, gradual and unforced change is better than compulsory change (63). Lewis implied that the overthrow of undemocratic regimes in places like Iraq and Syria is likely to cause political instability (63), which is true for these countries to this day due to the rise of ISIS and no stable political rule in these countries since. The liberal democracies of Western countries did not evolve overnight (Lewis 63). Democratic progress takes time to be achieved, as we have witnessed in recent years with the development of women’s rights in Britain and America as well as the end of slavery in the United States (Lewis 63). According to Lewis, certain countries like Egypt and Jordan offer hope as they are reforming autocracies (63). Therefore, democracy should not be made compulsory for many different countries.
In conclusion, the United States has caused nothing more than persistent sectarian fighting, political instability, and internal rest in the region that it causing ISIS to rise due to its failure to understand the complicated nature and history of Islam in many Islamic countries. Islam has a long tradition of rule that is associated with autocracy. Islam is associated with a culture that has failed to understand the merits of democracy and is rooted in religious connotations that associate religion and rule to be the same thing. Many countries like Jordan offer hope to this day that Islamic countries can develop democracy, as opposed to Iraq.
Works cited
Inglehart, Ronald & Christian Welzel. “A Revised Theory of Modernization.” Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Eds. Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 485-511. Print.
Lewis, Bernard. “A Historical Overview: Islam and Liberal Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 7.2 (1996): 52-63. Print.
Marx, Karl. “British Rule in India.” Daily Tribune [New York] 25 June 1853 late ed: A1. Print.
McClelland, David C. “The Achievement Motive in Economic Growth.” Industrialisation and Society. Eds. B.F. Moore and W.E. Hoselitz. Paris: UNESCO, 1966. 53-69. Print.
