The Development-First Argument

The argument that economic development must precede respect for civil and political rights falls on many receptive ears. From the despots of underdeveloped countries who sought a convenient banner under which to cling to power, to the officials of developing countries who found it useful to attribute economic progress to their own authoritarian rule, to governments in the developed world that were eager to justify windfalls to be made by ignoring the misdeeds of potentially profitable trading partners, the argument that civil and political rights must await economic progress often finds ready appeal. Invariably, it masks a primary concern with preserving the political status quo, even at the cost of popular well-being.

Some countries have managed to develop despite their repressive governments. Their leaders often claim credit for economic progress, but the claims are at best unprovable, since it is impossible to know how much farther an economy might have advanced with a less abusive government. Moreover, governments that follow a repressive route to development risk the handicap of competing in an information age without the free flow of information. Some also face the loss of many of their most talented citizens, who shun the sterility of a controlled environment. And all face the prospect of political turmoil, as authoritarian leaders confront growing demands for popular participation in government and respect for civil and political rights that often accompany improved living standards.

More often, repressive governments simply preside over stagnation and decline, as in much of Africa, the former Soviet bloc, and significant parts of Asia. These examples of repressive impoverishment reflect the impediments that violations of civil and political rights often place on the path to realization of economic rights. An inability to criticize government policies or to report truthfully their consequences can turn food shortage into famine, or humanitarian hardship into calamity. Censorship of reporting on corruption can encourage official preying on the economy and stifle development. Restrictions on the right to organize prevent workers from earning a subsistence wage. Limitations on the ability to publicize and campaign against threats to the environment can lead to environmental degradation. A weak or corrupt judicial system will tolerate the use of violence to dispossess peasants of their land. Discrimination against women can leave them powerless and dependent.

In these very concrete terms-the values of health, land, income, and environment on which people build their lives-repression is the nemesis of economic rights, particularly for the least powerful members of society. Indeed, it is to disguise such individual deprivations that proponents of authoritarian models tend to speak in terms of "development," presumably measured in collective terms, rather than the economic rights of individuals. We believe that respect for civil and political rights is the best guarantor of the economic rights that abusive proponents of development-first theories purport to champion.