The concept of political development seems to be quite a simple one on its face. Without investigating the role of the state too deeply, it is clear to see that in general, there are distinctions between the developmental levels of states around the world; while poverty exists in every nation, there are some that are much more stricken with the problem than others. In addition, relative levels of poverty within a nation is a scalable phenomenon—that is, levels of poverty and the very meaning of poverty can change across different political landscapes around the world. The conceptualisation of political development has changed multiple times throughout the years, and often reflects the best understanding of political and international events of the time.
This discussion will focus on the criteria associated with global political development and investigate how global political development engages with the wider development experience for societies at all levels of development. The scope of the discussion will focus on the accountability of the government, looking specifically at the role of government in the overall development process—corruption and governmental integration of progressive policies will be investigated in some depth. In addition, this discussion will investigate some of the implications of a responsive and accountable government, and the role of this type of government in the lives of the citizens. Political development and the development experience is something that all cultures and countries have experienced differently. It is a constant, ongoing process—the biggest struggle for many countries is to ensure that political development is moving in a direction that can be considered positive rather than a direction that might be considered negative or destructive.
A Contextual Overview of Global Development Trends Post-World War II
There is no doubt that since World War II, things have changed. Unfortunately, the end of the two World Wars did not usher in the long-term era of peace that so many wanted; however, World War II in particular did bring about massive changes in infrastructure, development, and even technological advancement that have played a significant role in the creation of the modern global paradigm (Binder and La Palombara 2015, 15-23; Kingsbury 2007, n.p.). The technological groundwork that was laid during the Second World War is what allowed so much technological advancement in the modern era; without the changes in industry and the critical focus on technology and science, the world would not have moved towards the integrated technologies that are available today (Freidman 2005, 35).
In the years following World War I and World War II, the world also became more invested in global development and global stability. The horrors of the Holocaust shook much of the world to its core; the events spurred the creation of the United Nations, the development of the International Monetary Fund, and even the creation of a new word: “genocide” (Binder and La Palombara 2015, 32; Kingsbury 2007, n.p.). During the years following the Second World War, the global landscape changed massively. Many countries around the world fought to free themselves from their colonial influence, seeking out independence and self-governance instead. As colonialism around the world fell, a new face of global development emerged as countries struggled with corruption, internal political development, and nation-building (Binder and La Palombara 2015, 32-33; Kingsbury 2007, n.p.; Grindle 2004, 526).
Main Criteria for Development
In the 1980s and 1990s, the main criterion for development around the world were linked to economic markers. However, as time went on and scholarship became better regarding the nature of political development, it became clear that economic markers are only part of the story when it comes to economic development—the existence of countries like China, which command massive wealth but are under-developed politically underscore the need for a better set of criteria in regards to political development in the modern world (Huntington 2006, 12-13; Törnquist 1999, 17-21).
Of course, this does not mean that economic inequalities within a society and global poverty trends should be completely ignored when searching for criteria for development—it merely means that economic inequality, both on a global and a national level, should be considered in conjunction with other developmental markers like the level of corruption within government, the personal autonomy of the citizenry, increase in education level of the citizenry as a whole and the participation of the people in their governmental structures (Kingsbury 2007, n.p.).
Without accepting a purely relativistic approach to developmental criterion, it is important to note that different cultures express development differently—however, regardless of the outcome, a nation that is experiencing positive development is experiencing positive, qualitative and quantitative improvements in these particular areas of concern (Kingsbury 2007, n.p.; Blair 2000, 2-3). Shrinking the income gap within a country can sometimes lead to a reduction in levels of corruption and even an increase in the number of citizens able to receive an education (Blair 2000, 2-3). As such, this discussion recognises that economic markers like the reduction in the income gap can be a more powerful marker of political development within a nation than markers like the development of a “democratic” system of government, which may or may not be a good indication of development, based on corruption inherent within the democratic body (Blair 2000, 2-5; Przeworski 2000, 2-5).
The role of economics in political and national development cannot be overstated, but wealth is not necessarily an indication of overall development, as previously discussed. China is an excellent example of a nation undergoing massive wealth accumulation in many sectors, but the country has a dearth of acceptable policies regarding human rights and development: this is why the personal autonomy of the citizens, the reduction of corruption, the participation of the people and the increase in education level should be considered in tandem in the country for the appropriate understanding of an individual nation’s developmental reality (Przeworski 2000, 2-5; Coleman 2015, 7).
Education in particular can have a defining role in development, as the education level of an individual generally makes them more willing and able to participate in government and political activity as a whole (Blair 2000, 14; Przeworski 2000, 2-5; Coleman 2015, 7-9). These are the main criteria for development that will be considered in this discussion. While there are innumerable other metrics that can be used to discuss political development—and many of these discussions are region or culture-specific—these terms are general enough to be utilised across a number of regions and cultural experiences.
Reform: Corruption and Development
In political science, the study of development in a global context has consumed the field since the end of World War II. There have been numerous models suggested, each of which takes into account different political and cultural factors in the assessment of development (Blair 2000, 14, 22, 47-50; Przeworski 2000, 2-3; Coleman 2015, 7-9). However, economics seems to play a very significant role in reform and political development, regardless of the other cultural realities—corruption in particular is a concern in regards to political development (Blair 2000, 14, 22; Przeworski 2000, 2-3; Coleman 2015, 9-10). Corruption in government occurs in societies of all levels of development, but in countries that are less developed, corruption levels tend to be higher and corruption seems to be systemic rather than limited to a single individual or disparate individuals within the governmental structure (Blair 2000, 14, 47-50; Przeworski 2000, 2-5).
Reform cannot happen without the general reduction in levels of corruption within society, as corruption is what underscores an individual’s distrust in the political processes of his or her government. Distrust leads to general malaise and malcontent, which can easily blossom into political instability, depending on the general nature of the state and the relative wealth imbalances between those with power and those without (Blair 2000, 17; Przeworski 2000, 2-7; Törnquist 1999, 17-21). Corruption on a systemic level is often known by all throughout society, and in many cases, it is only a matter of time before discontent with a corrupt system becomes general political instability within the very fabric of society (Blair 2000, 17; Przeworski 2000, 7-9; Törnquist 1999, 18-25).
Role of Responsible and Accountable Government in Citizen Behaviour
Groups of people are not necessarily driven by logic, but their behaviour is generally quite predictable—and there are certainly trends in international and national political development that demonstrate the role of government in citizen behaviour. A government does not necessarily have to be corrupt to be irresponsible, of course, but when a government is corrupt, there is no accountability built into the political structure: corruption in governmental structure is governed by political favors and economic exchange (Binder and La Palombara 2015, 50-51). The people have no way of knowing whether change will ever be enacted in a corrupt government, as there is no accountability—but when the government is responsive and accountable and it makes a mistake, there are avenues to rectify the mistake and obtain a perceptually-correct outcome.
An excellent example of the effect of a responsive and accountable government on citizen behaviour in the political sphere is the recent result of the Brexit poll in Great Britain. Political leaders made a significant mistake in their estimation of the effects of choosing to leave the European Union, but Great Britain’s political structure has not collapsed—while there was a brief period with no Prime Minister, the position has been filled and there is no threat of greater instability or disintegration of the political structure. Conversely, in the 1960s through the 2000s, a number of African nations—including Rwanda, Kenya, and even Egypt-- devolved into civil war and chaos over political disputes because the governments were corrupt and unresponsive to citizen concerns. Clearly, if there is trust in the political system, it becomes much easier for citizens to imagine a non-violent and non-destructive manner to solve disputes and settle political issues. This is also linked to personal autonomy, of course: citizens who feel empowered to act and participate politically do not often feel the need to resort to violence in the political sphere.
Citizen Reaction to Governmental Failure
Citizens can have a number of reactions to government failure, and the reaction to failure is linked in large part to the stability of the nation as a whole (Blair 2000, 46-50). Every government fails in some way: there are no perfect global governments, and no matter what decision is made, there is an individual somewhere within the nation who feels as though his or her government has failed. There are times, however, when the government truly does fail the citizenry in a spectacular fashion, and these failures are not solely linked to countries in the midst of development. However, the incidental failure of a government is very different from the reaction of the citizenry when citizens do not have a responsive and accountable government as a whole (Huntington 2006, 12-13, 77, 109-111; Grindle 2004, 525-526).
There are a few things that can and often do happen when the citizenry does not feel as though the government reflects their political identity. First, the citizenry can choose to enact change through the political process—however, if the government is not responsive or accountable, political change can be difficult through accepted channels (Huntington 2006, 109-111). Next, the citizenry might try political protests: non-violent and violent protests are both likely to occur, based on the reaction of the government to the citizenry (Huntington 2006, 110-115). If the rift between the government and the opposition becomes heated enough, violence and even civil war can occur as a result of the political divide: this kind of divisive split between different factions in society has been commonly seen in post-colonial states in the years since the end of World War II (Blair 2000, 21). When the people feel that they have been oppressed and that the government is not listening, violence and political instability becomes increasingly likely.
Citizenship and State Mismatches: When the State Identity and Citizen Identity Diverge
National boundaries around the world have been drawn to include multiple national identities. Containing different cultural identities within the same national boundaries does not have to be detrimental to the outcomes of the state: for instance, in Malaysia, there are numerous ethnic and cultural identities contained within the borders of the country, and Malaysia remains a relatively politically-stable nation with little ethnic violence of consequence (Seers 1983, 3; Przeworski 2000, 7-9; Törnquist 1999, 19-25). Not all nations have had the developmental circumstances to remain stable through these kinds of ethnic differences, and often, when people feel as though they are being mistreated as a result of their national identity, political instability is the result.
When the citizens feel that they have been included in a state that does not adequately represent their sense of national identity, the resulting friction can and sometimes does lead to ethnic violence, political instability, and even civil war or genocide (Seers 1983, 3). The events in Rwanda in the early 1990s are a perfect example of ethnic friction leading to violence and political instability; corruption in government and long-term ethnic imbalances in political representation and identity eventually led the Hutus to kill the Tutsis in a massive genocidal campaign led by political leaders (Adsera, Boix and Payne 2003, 447-448; Blair 2000, 21).
Discussion and Conclusions
There is no single set of criteria associated with political development, unfortunately. Many of the criteria that can be discussed regarding political development are contextual, and require a comparative investigation to flesh out. The problem with using comparative metrics in regards to development is that there is always the potential for the dominant cultural paradigm to be more thoroughly reflected in the model—that is, a hegemonic cultural-normative approach to comparative politics in the realm of development studies is sometimes seen. Deciding what constitutes development is something that is hard to divorce from cultural standards and understandings, but considering developmental standards independently from democratic development in particular is extremely important from a global perspective. However, even after considering the potential benefits of development without democracy, it becomes clear that the development of personal citizen autonomy is something that is quite essential in overall political development (Trevaskis and Humphris 2009, n.p.). Although political independence and nation-building is a difficult process, the trend towards global national autonomy has been clear in the years since World War II (Blair 2000, 22-23). National development is linked inextricably to independence from outside governance, but it is also internally linked to the development of personal autonomy rules for citizens at all levels of wealth.
Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” suggests that there are some things that every human needs to be at a base level of satisfaction. Countries around the world are still struggling to provide the base needs to all citizens, so this cannot be a marker of development—however, dignity, participation, and autonomy remain a central theme in the criteria for development in countries of all levels of wealth (Blair 2000, 23). While the reliance on dignity might seem arbitrary and as though global research is moving away from a workable conceptualisation of political development, but in reality, there are quantifiable markers of dignity, participation, and autonomy that can be used to better define political development as a whole.
References
Adsera, A., Boix, C. and Payne, M., 2003. Are you being served? Political accountability and quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, and organization, 19(2), pp.445-490.
Binder, L. and La Palombara, J., 2015. Crises and Sequences in Political Development.(SPD-7). Princeton University Press.
Blair, H., 2000. Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance in six countries. World development, 28(1), pp.21-39.
Coleman, J.S., 2015. Education and Political Development.(SPD-4) (Vol. 4). Princeton University Press.
Freidman, T., 2005. The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Grindle, M.S., 2004. Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17(4), pp.525-548.
Kingsbury, D. 2007. Political development. London: Routledge.
Huntington, S.P., 2006. Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press.
Przeworski, A., 2000. Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990 (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Seers, D., 1983. The political economy of nationalism. Oxford University Press, USA.
Törnquist, O., 1999. Politics and development: A critical introduction. Sage.
Trevaskis, L. and Humphris, K. 2009. East Timor Remembers - ABC Darwin - Australian Broadcasting Corporation. [online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2009/08/25/2666550.htm [Accessed 20 Aug. 2016].
