Yesterday’s Washington Post editorial on Obama and democracy is getting a lot of attention. Much of the discussion is taking place around the framing of economic development versus democracy. Samantha Power’s argument that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen sums up the argument for the primacy of economic development crowd. Of course, lack of democracy does not solve these problems, either. Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal hits on the central flaw in the economic development first argument, economic and political rights are not substitutes, but complements:

But of course, political right and social rights are, on a practical level, not equal; because only with political freedom…can citizens ensure that any social service is being provided fairly to citizens – or even provided at all. Otherwise they are simply relying on the benevolence of their unelected and unaccountable leaders…

For most people around the world…free and fair elections take a back seat to basic health care, food security and education. Economic development is important, but when you have political leaders who rule by fiat and have little interest in providing for their citizens it ain’t going to amount to much in the end.

Thank you, Michael. This expresses my point of view exactly and sums up the scholarly consensus on this issue. The economic development first crowd either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that no amount of aid can spur economic development unless a government is interested in providing it. I don’t know a single person who advocates democracy instead of development or that the latter is less important than the former. Rather, the consensus is that political rights are the only guarantee of economic ones. I think it’s time to put the economic development first myth to sleep.