Does democracy brings wealth?

My previous post in response to Marc Lynch and his Talking about Jordan post generated quite a burst of responses on this blog and his. It is always exciting to see some passion rising up in the conversation, however a R-rated passion must be tamed whenever a few crosses the line of decency and convert the debate to make it personal attack against the writer or another commentator. With all things considered, I was excited and embezzled a little bit by some of those who responded in favor of democracy. Not in terms of its necessity and applicability in the Middle East and particularly in Jordan, but more in terms of the economic benefits that some people think that comes naturally along with it.

Somehow, some commentators got the idea somewhere that a full-functioning democracy is essential for economic growth and equality among the citizen of the society. This wishful thinking has some truth to it but the relationship between democracy and economic growth is way more complicated than a proportional linear one. The real question is for researchers and readers of this blog to determine whether democracy brings wealth or the other way around?

Unfortunately for democracy activists, research in the field of development indicates that economic development typically creates democratic changes and not the other away around. That the distribution of wealth in the society will typically create a large enough middle class which is needed as the social basis of democracy. Additionally wealth usually increases the level of education in the society to facilitate democratic changes in the political arena. That is also questionable at least by some of commentators on my previous post who believe somehow that Western-educated Jordanians are those who mostly opposed to any democratic changes. Some even named this group the "neo-liberals" hinting to another group of thinkers "neo-conservative" which is infamous and unfortunate these days in Washington DC. However; the argument for education basically support the idea that an educated citizenry is likely to be more knowledgeable about the political process and aware of their rights. So is the relationship between wealth and democracy a direct and a linear one? The answer is not that simple.

Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi found that wealth has a measurable effect on the survival rate of democracy, but not on the emergence rate of democracy. In other words, to the extent wealth is an independent variable, poor democracies are more likely to collapse than wealthy democracies. The bottom line is that you can be all for democracy and for its benefits on the society but do not associate wealth directly with democracy. The presence of first does not mean the presence of the latter. A sobering example is China, which enjoyed the most growing economy for the last two decades where its government still governs its people by blood and fear.

On another topic. What is the relationship between democracy and human rights? Now that will require another post so stay tuned.

On Abu Ardvark (Marc Lynch) ridiculing Jordan

Mark Lynch, a political professor in George Washington University and the author of the "Abu Ardvark" blog had an interesting post "Talking About Jordan" last week. Mr. Lynch's post emerged as a result of a social gathering that he had talking about the "confederation option" and other current issues with several of his Jordanian journalists friends. Marc made me laugh when he refused to divulge the identity of those journalists as if the "confederation issue" is a taboo and was not discussed by tons of Jordanian journalists in almost all daily and weekly Jordanian newspapers or as if those journalists are going to be hanged for meeting with him.

After talking about the "confederation issue", Mr. Lynch remembered suddenly that he needed to spice up the conversation so he started to ridicule the Jordanian political system pointing out that there is no clear line of succession in Jordan if (God forbids) something happens to the King. He reminded us all that the King abolished the position of the Crown Prince and finally suggested few names to run the country if a crisis hits, particularly mentioning the name of the current head of intelligence; a subtle indication that Jordan survives and thrives on people like Dahabi who rules by fear and intimidation.

After reading his post, I discovered why America is doomed these days in Iraq. It is people like Lynch and other bureaucrats in Washington DC who keep interpreting the events in our warm part of the world from their air-conditioned offices using their western mindset. Those bureaucrats might know how to read and write Arabic to impress their audience but do not have any clue about the Arabic mind and culture. The truth is that democracy in its westernized version might not be the best option for running a government in the Middle East. We are all tired and can not afford to keep trying ideas succeeded in the West. The only three democratized countries are Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. If this what democracy is all about then to hill with it.

It is stability that we are all after in the Middle East; that is why the Palestinians are dying to have a confederation with Jordan after fighting against it for decades. It is about having a central and unifying figure who has the legitimacy (Being a Hashemite; a descendant for the prophet's line for e.g.) who can bring the tribes that make up the fabric of the collectivistic community together. That is why Jordan is stable and strong but thanks for Mr. Lynch's concerns. Mr. Olmert and Netanyahu before him expressed theirs concerns about the future of Jordan. Their genuine empathy and concerns had an underlying motive and that to keep America to stay in Iraq which is quite understandable. What I do not understand is Mr. Lynch underlying motives?

And, oh by the way Mr. Lynch, There is a navigation system in Jordan to determine the line of succession. The late King Hussein talked about it ten years ago when he established a royal counsel with a purpose to meet and determine the best to run the country but thanks any way for the list of candidates that you've mentioned. I am not sure Jordan needs it.

On President Bush being called to testify in front of a Jordanian court

The defending lawyer of two suspected Islamists accused of plotting to assassinate US President George W. Bush in Jordan last year asked both President George W.Bush and the American Ambassador to the Kingdom to testify in front of the court. Nidal Momani, Satam Zawahreh and Thrawat Mohamed from Zarqa were accused of having unauthorized weapons and plotting to assassinate the President in his last visit to the Kingdom few months ago.

President Bush who recently claimed executive privilege and refused to comply with a congress' subpoena is unlikely to come to Jordan to testify, still if you are a lawyer and want to make a name in the news these days then all of what you need is to act as idiot and associate your name with a president or a previous president. Now, this is not the first time that a Jordanian make an uproar in the news by suing or asking American presidents to stand in front of a Jordanian court. In the nineties, a funny Jordanian man whom name was "Baddy" wanted to sue President Clinton for naming his dog with a similar name. Buddy; Clintion's dog is spelled and pronounced a little bit differently but it was close enough for Mr. Baddy to attempt to sue the President. Baddy claimed that his life endured emotional damage and ridicule from the public because of his name association with Clinton's dog; Buddy. Associating with a dog is an insult in the Arabic culture. In that case and as I remembered, Baddy asked President Clinton to rename his dog differently and compensate him financially for his suffering. Unfortunately The story was resolved tragically and out of court when Buddy the dog was killed by a car accident. This current court case might end similarly but in a different way. This time the plotted assassins might be the ones who ended up dying. Let's wait and see. Obviously we are living in interesting times.