Siegle et al contend that democracies do a better job of development than autocracies- except for the case of East Asia.  They summarily dismiss this unwelcome fact:

"Although exceptional cases exist [East Asia], it is the preponderance of experience that should guide development policy [and democracies have a better record]."

I'm afraid that Siegle et al are missing the forest for the trees.  The issue is not what kind of government these countries had, but the type of economy that the government supported.  The Asian tigers committed themselves to introducing capitalism.  India, a democracy, suffered from the "Hindu rate of growth" until the 1990s, when Monmohan Singh's reforms turned India capitalist.  China, an autocracy, did not experience exponential growth until after Deng Xaioping's capitalist reforms.  

Certainly I am cherry-picking examples.  But I believe it's clear that countries with properly functioning capitalist systems develop fastest, regardless of the form of government.  This is what really separates the former dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore (still a one-party state), and Indonesia, from the regimes in North Korea, Laos, and Burma in terms of development.


- Jon

"Why Democracies Excel" by Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton Halperin

Money quote: "Economic development makes democracy possible," asserts
the U.S. State Department’s Web site, subscribing to a highly
influential argument: that poor countries must develop economically
before they can democratize. But the historical data prove otherwise.
Poor democracies have grown at least as fast as poor autocracies and
have significantly outperformed the latter on most indicators of social
well-being. They have also done much better at avoiding catastrophes.
Dispelling the “development first, democracy later” argument is
critical not only because it is wrong but also because it has led to
atrocious policies—indeed, policies that have undermined international
efforts to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people
in the developing world."

The advent of new technology has often had a marked effect on societies and their political structures. The printing press, telegraph, radio, and  internet all brought the world closer together and facilitated the proliferation of ideas and by extension political change.

Enter Twitter. The micro-blogging service, according to its proponents, already redefined the way social movements organize in Moldova and Iran and it is set to liberate more closed societies as soon as they get reliable 3G networks.

Not so fast says Evgeny Morozov.

Morozov, in his recent Foreign Policy article, presents and debunks seven misconceptions about Twitter and its usefulness in authoritarian contexts. The truth, as Morozov artfully describes, is that Twitter is simply a tool and a poor one at that. It has far less potential than other social networking sites and can easily be turned against activist by a semi-internet-literate opponent.

Twitter represents more of a challenge to media gathering standards than to authoritarian governments.

-Evan