Is running a democracy cheaper?
From an L.A. Times article on the still atrocious human rights situation in Zimbabwe: Amnesty International said Thursday that serious human rights abuses continue in Zimbabwe and criticized members of President Robert Mugabe’s ruling party, saying they regard violence as a useful political tool. After a six-day trip to Zimbabwe, the group’s chief, Irene Khan, ...
From an L.A. Times article on the still atrocious human rights situation in Zimbabwe:
From an L.A. Times article on the still atrocious human rights situation in Zimbabwe:
Amnesty International said Thursday that serious human rights abuses continue in Zimbabwe and criticized members of President Robert Mugabe’s ruling party, saying they regard violence as a useful political tool.
After a six-day trip to Zimbabwe, the group’s chief, Irene Khan, dismissed the government’s explanation that it lacked the funds to make improvements on human rights.
"Ending attacks on human rights defenders, lifting restrictions on the media and allowing public protests do not require more money. They only require political will," she said in a statement.
This raises a question though, which is also very pertinent given the events in Iran this week: is it cheaper to have a dictatorship or a democracy?
At first glance, Kahn’s statement makes intuitive sense. Allowing demonstrators to protest, journalists to write what they want, and NGOs to function is cheaper than monitoring and suppressing them. Police states cost money.
But as Paul Collier points out, if you’re a dictator, the problem with making your country more democratic is that you might lose. And if you don’t want to lose you have to keep your population happy, which generally costs money. Why spend your hard-earned tax revenue/natural resource wealth/foreign aid money on schools and hospitals when you can just buy new batons for your riot police and send the rest to your Swiss bank account?
For what it’s worth, this NationMaster table doesn’t show much of any correlation between regime type and government spending as percentage of GDP. There are some very expensive totalitarian regimes (Cuba: 57 percent of GDP) and some very cheap ones (Turkmenistan: 13 percent of GDP). Zimbabwe’s percentage is quite high, but the fundamentals of the country’s economy are so completely screwy that this probably doesn’t mean much of anything.
Still, though, I think Kahn’s statement is wrong. The Zimbabwean state is currently set up with the primary goals of repressing its citizens and accumulating wealth for elites. Converting it into a democracy whoe goal is promoting the welfare of its citizens is not going to be cheap.
This is not to defend Mugabe’s regime or any other authoritarian state. But those of us rooting for democratic change, whether in Harare or Tehran, need to understand the costs, both economic and political.
Joshua Keating was an associate editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @joshuakeating
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
