I identify with the Nobel Foundation of Sweden, which has awarded Daron Acemoglu, of Turkish origin, and the British Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson, the Nobel Prize in Economics for their contributions to the study of the inequality of nations. Acemoglu and his colleagues work and do research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while Robinson does so at the University of Chicago.
This fact is transcendental given that today it is accepted as an established science that inequality between people, classes, social strata, and countries is the most important of the issues associated with the problems of development, or more exactly, underdevelopment.
Robinson, professor of Global Conflict Studies and director of the Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts at the University of Chicago, with experience in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa and whose conclusions about the relationships between political power, institutions, and prosperity I share, because they scientifically support something that, empirically, my older brother confirmed years ago.
Without higher social studies, based on pure observations, he realized that all developed nations are democracies and that democracies progress faster than those countries that are not. “In Latin America,” he said, “there is no developed nation because there is no democracy.”
In fact, although I recognize the exceptions, as part of a universal civilizing trend, there is an evident correlation between development and democracy. Hence, the efforts for the general progress of third-world nations must be accompanied by the expansion and deepening of democracy.
Democracy and the climate of freedom accompanying it, including economic freedoms, create an environment conducive to business, security for investment, trade, and the willingness to do research and innovation, stimulating consumption, which are essential for general progress.
On the other hand, authoritarianism, bureaucracy, corruption, and state interference, excessive regulations, and the discretion with which rulers and officials tend to act, produce the opposite effect, scaring away investors and contributing to the weakness of institutions and civil society.
Observations in this regard must take into account that, although the existence of democracy presents common features, such as the existence of state and social institutions, expressions of popular sovereignty, eligibility of rulers, certain degrees of pluralism, existence of mechanisms of social control of power, validity of the rule of law and separation of powers, the configuration of the democratic system may be unevenly developed and vary from one country to another.
I once read the observation that: “There are countries that are democratic every day, except on the day of elections and vice versa, because they are only democratic on that day.”
No country in Europe has the natural resources of Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, or Mexico. Still, none of them exhibits the solidity, quality, and stability of European state and social institutions. Despite such negative and devastating experiences as the two world wars, the rise of negative political currents such as fascism, in the Old Continent, without being perfect, state and social institutions and democracy have prevailed and are not questioned anywhere.
Liberal political, economic, and cultural thought that gained momentum in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries was reinforced by Karl Marx’s thesis that at certain stages of development, stagnation in production relations becomes a brake on the development of productive forces and an obstacle to general progress. According to these conclusions, the clash between these two factors (productive forces and production relations) opened an era of social revolution.
These perspectives, together with advanced philosophical and political notions, fostered European experiences that, although extremely controversial, such as the Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of socialism in the Soviet Union, reinforce the view that general progress, including economic development, is linked to democracy and political performance.
The climate of oppression under the Tsarist regime, the support of the ruthless and predatory Russian Empire, is not comparable to the atmosphere of freedom, creativity and social inclusion unleashed by socialism in the USSR, whose peoples, led by the Bolsheviks, in brief historical periods surpassed the feudal horizon, unleashed productive forces, created and distributed with justice and equity the immense wealth they had created themselves.
Collective heroism and the passionate defense of their homeland and their way of life led to the victory of the peoples of the Soviet Union, allied with other Western countries, over fascism.
On the other hand, it should serve to learn from mistakes, precisely the deficits of democracy, rights and political and civil liberties that caused stagnation and popular disappointment that, after seventy years of heroic efforts, ruined that experience and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Parallel to this, the same experience has been repeated in the People’s Republic of China, where dogmatism and authoritarianism became a brake on economic development and general progress. The reforms promoted there from 1978 onwards, as an expression of the democratization of the socialist system, led to openings and growth in well-being and explains China’s extraordinary progress.
The award-winning researchers do not minimize the role of colonialism and neocolonialism in the shameful existence of inequalities, but neither do they absolve the local oligarchies that, for their own benefit, took over the republics as spoils and, instead of resolving them, deepened the structural deformations associated with colonialism, dependency, and inequalities and are responsible for the weakness of the institutions that should sustain democracy.
I promise to delve deeper into the relevance and repercussions of the recently awarded Nobel Prizes in Economics for democracy, social struggles, and the general progress of the countries of Latin America. I once heard Ricardo Alarcón, a prominent Cuban politician and thinker, say: “Everything begins and ends with democracy.” This is what the Nobel Prize winners believe. See you there.
________________________________________
*This text was originally published in the newspaper ¡Por esto! It is reproduced with the express permission of its author.
