Samir Sadek, Mamdouh Bitar
Those who attempt to uncover the relationship between development and democracy find that democracy, with its institutions, enables real development with a human face. They also conclude that progress in the development pro ess creates objective conditions that consolidate democratic practices. It seems that the influence is reciprocal
In modern economic literature, development takes on a deeper dimension and a broader framework. It is not exclusively economic, nor is it an expression of the extent of a society’s productive capacity. The goal of productive economic development is to achieve human development, which means improving people’s living conditions, ensuring a dignified life. Humans are the instrument of development, and humans are the target of development. Development of people by people requires people’s participation, i.e., popular participation, which defines people’s needs and determines the means necessary to implement this development. It also requires the continuous development of knowledge and skills. It also requires free popular participation that defines the desired goal and the tools necessary to achieve it. Popular participation means the participation of civil society institutions.
All of this requires a form of democracy in its contemporary form, which represents a method for making public decisions by those committed to it. It is a method for managing differences of opinion and interests in a peaceful manner. The essence of democracy is recognizing the other and their right to express themselves and defend their interests. It is an ongoing dialogue within the framework of differences in order to reach solutions to the problems facing society, and then to organize relations in a way that ensures progress and equality for all in rights and duties. There is no human development without democracy, and no democracy without human development.
Development is not merely a process of economic expansion. Development is strongly influenced by the form and pattern of prevailing social relations. In light of class division, the most powerful groups monopolize the lion’s share of the fruits of development. In addition to social division, in underdeveloped states, there are additional influencing factors, including corruption and state bureaucracy. It is no surprise that the problems of the popular classes do not receive the attention they deserve, and consequently, the fruits of development are not distributed equitably. This leads to feelings of injustice and frustration, which in turn breed resentment, rebellion, disobedience, despair, and, ultimately, withdrawal and passivity. As a result, the country suffers from political and social instability, and the state subsequently collapses, eventually leading to its demise.
The lack of popular participation in decision-making, due to the arbitrary treatment of freedom of opinion and the individual’s freedom to express their interests, means that decision-making is monopolized by the state bureaucracy and by the corrupt systems fostered by the state, which is founded on corruption. This leads to the obstruction of the human development process. The concern of the underdeveloped state bureaucracy, and the project of this bureaucracy, lies in enabling corruption to control the people.
The relationship between development and democracy is profound, and its depth and importance are parallel to the importance of the human element, or human capital, which is not measured by numbers, but rather by the professional, intellectual, educational, and qualification “equipment” present in people’s heads and brains. Human capabilities cannot grow and advance without fair democracy, which treats people equally in rights and duties. Human capital cannot function without physical capital, i.e., investment investment. Investment in investment is the engine of development. Therefore, we see countries aware of development encouraging foreign investment. It is a gift to the country in which this investment is made, and investment is profitable, even if it is in the form of loans. Here, I assume, regarding profit, that corruption has not been able to seize investment. The amount of foreign investment in wealthy Europe is enormous, and cannot be compared to foreign investment in a country like Syria, which, as far as we know, was devoid of foreign investment.
Despite the importance of material investment, this importance remains secondary compared to the importance of human capital. There are countries with very large material capital, such as oil countries, and despite the huge potential for investment employment, these countries have not been able to go down the path of development, due to the weakness of human capital. On the other hand, there are countries that have been able, without natural resources, to develop and prosper for their people. These countries are mostly democratic countries, so it can be said that the human being is what is important first and foremost, democracy at the same level, and finally material capital. It is difficult to encourage the citizen to strive to acquire more knowledge and skills without feeling the possibility of progress, and without feeling and realizing that work and development are profitable for him
In the end, it is necessary to address the monopoly of production by non-producers, for example, armies that have not succeeded in defending homelands, but rather in defending individuals, who plunder public money, without producing anything. The other factor that consumes is the security services, which consume the largest part of production, without producing in most backward countries, which see that the source of insecurity in the authoritarian sense of the word is not external but internal. It is clear that there is no stability through the security services, whose behavior represents the ultimate insecurity. Stability does not occur and is not achieved except through democracy. The regimes collapsed. Socialism is not due to a lack of security services, but to an abundance of security services.