Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow Underdevelopment vs. Consensus - Literature of Liberty, July/September 1978, vol. 1, No. 3

Return to Title Page for Literature of Liberty, July/September 1978, vol. 1, No. 3

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory

Underdevelopment vs. Consensus - Leonard P. Liggio, Literature of Liberty, July/September 1978, vol. 1, No. 3 [1978]

Edition used:

Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought was published first by the Cato Institute (1978-1979) and later by the Institute for Humane Studies (1980-1982) under the editorial direction of Leonard P. Liggio.

Part of: Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought, 20 vols. 19781-982

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


Underdevelopment vs. Consensus

Conway W. Henderson

  • University of South Carolina, Spartanburg

“Underdevelopment and Political Rights: A Revisionist Challenge.” Government and Opposition 21 (Summer 1977): 276–292.

Do less developed countries need authoritarian regimes?

No. A dissenting criticism attacks the growing body of literature that attempts to explain and justify the drift toward authoritarianism. Too many have uncritically accepted the rationale for the emergence of single-party regimes headed by charismatic leaders.

Three major themes arise from such “apologist” literature. First, some argue that opposition parties endanger national unity in heterogenous, underdeveloped states. But unity cannot be artificially imposed by a single party government. Giving each element in the population a share of power would probably have a more stabilizing effect than would authoritarian rule.

Secondly, others argue that single party states can achieve adequate representation in the interim for all elements in the population; such states may actually serve as training grounds to prepare the country for democracy at some future time. The counterargument to this is that a political system cannot remain essentially democratic on an intraparty basis. The party will eventually lose its internal pluralism (and democracy) as it moves to silence the opposition and degenerates into an organization run from the top. Single parties, moreover, are not equipped to serve as a democratic device for dissent among elites or as a useful channel of expression for the masses. Nor does such a state show much prospect for evolving into a more democratic system in the future under the “tutelary” guidance of elites.

To summarize the “revisionist” challenge to tutelary democracy, we suggest that conflict should not be a reason for delaying democracy; it should serve as a reason to accept opposition and dissent so that the short-term gains of suppression can give way to the long-term formative effects of democracy.

Thirdly, the “apologists” for single party regimes tend to adopt an elitist or “Hamiltonian view” of society: the common folk in these essentially peasant societies are too immature to participate in government and elections. This “guided democracy” concept is condescending and paternal, assuming that people are not ready to make their own decisions. However, considerable field evidence shows that peasants have a very good instinct for what should be done and how democracy can work for them.

The UN could play a more determined role in defining political rights in specific, meaningful terms. It could then work for the enforcement of political rights in less developed countries—at least to the extent of conducting investigations, hearing reports of violations, and making recommendations for remedies. This approach narrowly defines political rights as simply the right to participate in government.