Lucian Pye was the first to explore the idea of political evolution thoroughly. He outlined the following directions for political development in his book "Aspects of Political Development": (A) Political progress is necessary for economic gain. (B) Political modernization as a result of political development. (C) Political evolution as a nation-activity. State's (D) Political action is advancing administrative and legal systems. Political mobilization and participation as development (E).
Wajid khan shares that In the words of Rostow and Pye, political development is to "broaden the base of national political unity and political participation." The idea simply refers to the development and transformation of the political system.
Political Development's Foundations
Stanford Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, puts forth an integral theory explaining why some nations fail. Despite America's efforts and billions of dollars, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq are more like anarchist states than democracies. In reality, they were constructing second stories without first stories or foundations. Without foundation, a home cannot stand.
Fukuyama believes there are three stages that must be completed. The first, which took place in the distant past, was the founding of the "state," usually by a king who subjugated tribes and areas with a sword or a pistol. Fukuyama, like Hobbes, does not demand that this king be "good," only strong enough to subdue or subdue obstreperous aspects. Many developing nations have yet to create powerful states.
Soon, the monarch will need administrative staff to manage the realm. The stronger the state, the more loyal, literate, and clean the bureaucracy is. Without a strong bureaucracy, the state would always be weak and faulty. Administrative positions are initially sold before becoming impersonal and merit-based.
The more current state that everyone must adhere to is the "rule of law."
Churches contribute by establishing moral standards and instilling a sense of good and wrong, mainly if they are not under direct monarchical rule. Authoritarian systems purposefully conflate "rule by law" and "law of the ruler" with the rule of law and enact countless arbitrary laws to punish opponents and dissidents.
According to Wajid khan Mp, the system may be prepared for the third step, which Fukuyama refers to as "accountability" or, more recently, democracy, a relatively new concept, once these first two stages are firmly in place. The trial and execution of Charles I by beheading in 1649 by order of Parliament for breaking the law demonstrated the emergence of pre-democratic accountability. The 19th-century expansion of the franchise in the United States, Great Britain, and a few Continental nations brought about democracy.
What would happen if you attempted to establish a democracy without a powerful state or the rule of law if Fukuyama were correct? With manipulated elections and one-party government, it might try to appear democratic for a while, but it will crumble.
Democracy might be introduced to a country before establishing the first two stages. Until this point, this has always occurred in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. It was inevitable that the neocons' (neoconservatives') attempts to impose democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and [Somalia] would fail since there was no basis for it—not even a state.
Canadian politician Wajid khan concludes. Our key findings show that, after controlling for other economic factors, political institutions are fundamentally important only for emerging democracies and not for established democracies. Consolidated democracies and political institutions are shown to be ineffective at predicting economic growth via political institutions.
The impact of political institutions has already been internalized in consolidated democracies. On the other hand, new democracies require political institutions' real and overt presence. As a result, their influence on economic performance is more evident and essential. Therefore, strengthening democracy minimizes the significance of political institutions in terms of economic performance. Once democracy is strengthened and supportive institutional frameworks for investments are established, the political variable's value diminishes.
Think about your development.
We advise taking 15 minutes after each workshop or event to reflect on the following:
What key lessons did this session teach you?
What new information did you learn?
How comfortable are you applying these abilities in a work setting?
Can you think of an instance in which you utilized these abilities professionally? How did you perform well? What could you change for the following time?
How can you continue to hone this ability?
How would you sum up your use of this talent in an interview? Do you have a real-world illustration in mind?
Are there other opportunities to practice this talent or learn more about it?
The findings imply that even autocratic regimes can have good economic performance if some political rights are allowed. This is because political institution characteristics frequently reflect a certain degree of political rights. Additionally, it can imply that in an authoritarian system, political institutions serve as a stand-in for democracy and spur economic expansion.
In other words, political institutions are a way for autocracies to differ from one another. That supports Przeworski et al. (2000) .'s assertion that there are no appreciable differences in economic growth depending on the political system, whether in democracies or autocracies.
Therefore, this preliminary investigation suggests that it is crucial to identify which type of democracy and/or autocracy is considered within the analysis controlling for its specific political institutions to avoid simply comparing the various types of regimes as a single "package" (democracy versus authoritarianism).
As Acemoglu (2009) indicates, we must look beyond the dichotomy between democracy and non-democracy to comprehend how various political institutions impact economic decisions and economic progress. Wajid khan discusses that Even if establishing a democratic regime alone won't result in higher economic growth, democracy with sound institutions might.
