Ask this any layman and the only answer you will receive, replete with a pokerfaced incredulity of not grasping something considered obvious, will be a resounding ‘yes’.
And yet, a simple search on Google will reveal treasure trove of data on this specifically.
So why, what is considered as obvious as Earth being a globe, is there so much research on this topic? While a Freudian will yawn and tell you it is because students are too either lazy to pick a serious topic or supervisors disinterested, for one, research has the amazing ability of turning commonly held beliefs upside down, common sense protests against the impossibility of it all, yet the results speak for themselves. And although scholarly work in every arena is important, for something that affects down to an individual of a country so acutely, no matter how much data or research there is, it will never be enough.
When we talk about political stability, the first to strike the mind are the obvious European nations and the United States. A sad ‘Japan’ might be supplied with a blank face after rattling their rusted brains a bit. Many still might unconsciously associate it with democracy.
Interestingly, many politically stable states are not democracies, rather, autocratic in nature. Singapore with its (formerly) one-party system, or China under the Communist Party are classic examples. In contrast, the ‘democracies’ from sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America or Asia are politically weak, unsteady and prone to constant changes or coup d’états.
Within Pakistan, a state that spent most of its history under military rule, a large segment of the populace actually favours the military juntas, whipping out the better economic conditions and relative stability the country enjoyed compared to constant protests and civil disobedience that has become a hallmark of ‘democratic’ regimes there.
Despite this, when talking about political stability, a common Pakistani has a democratically-elected government in mind, free from corruption, civic disturbances and other staples of everyday life in this country of 200 million people.
This begs the question, what is political stability? A democratic state? Bangladesh is one and in its short history, suffered from every conceivable political perversion known to humanity. Whatever one might say about Muammar Qaddafi, Libya under him enjoyed an era of unmatched prosperity. Overthrowing the Western-backed monarchy, the colonel instituted a series of reforms and Libyans enjoyed free housing, health care, and education. Electricity was free, and per capita income increased to $11 000, equivalent to Egypt, the military might of Arab World. Post-Qaddafi, you find the state ruined into three parts, one controlled by terrorists and entire slave markets. Which of this would you prefer?
Democracies are also extremely volatile, as has been seen in Italy rocked by one enthusiastic change in government after another. The situation would not have been so drastic if the change in ideology wasn’t so stark – from capitalist, pro-EU to a populist to a left-leaning party all trying in vain to form coalition government. In a rather bizarre turn, the populist-elected Giuseppe Conte is currently heading a cabinet of left-wing supporters. Italian economy hangs on with a bated breath, as $2.3 trillion debt-sword looms menacingly over its head.
Political stability then, is not as much about democracy as simply that, governmentally firm. Any unpredictable change in a government, regime or leadership, combined with an ideological drift, caused either by warring political factions or a disgruntled public protesting seems a much better understanding of political instability.
Now, why is it feared? Any sudden change at government level is bound to cause shift in economic policies, something every investor or businessperson fears. Business on its own is a risky venture, no one wants the added burden of uncertain policies, especially for long-term projects with lengthier development period. The investors are not sure whether the new policies would benefit their business, be forced to pay more taxes, or uncertainty lead to a spike in property costs. This drives away the foreign investment desperately needed in this globalised world for developing economies in particular.
Besides the expertise and advanced technology foreign investment brings, with constant political instability, governments do not have time or peace needed to enact economic reforms, such as incentives for domestic production.
In uncertain times, economies usually shift from production to consumption and imports, as markets might be closed due to protests, producers are unable to get loans to start own business, or rule of law is weak. Skilled workers then emigrate usually, resulting in ‘brain drain’, an asset irreplaceable immediately.
With businesses scarce, wages are low, and attention is given to survival rather than education. Without education, a new generation of skilled workers is absent. The unemployed youth then turns to crime or drugs, with El Salvador a poster child for youth heavily involved in gang life, or childsoldiers in east- and sub-Saharan Africa ravaged by decades-long civil wars.
On the other hand, a politically stable country, Vietnam has actually been hurting because of this! With no change in the ruling party, the state-owned enterprises in Vietnam have not transformed over years. Workers are overworked, and despite a claim to communist ideals, most of these state-owned companies are nothing but golden goose for the party officials.
Greece was under a repressive military junta during the height of its ‘economic miracle’ in 20th century, whereas, India under the Hindu-nationalist Narendra Modi as Prime Minister, registered far better economic performance than the quaint, placid rule of the secular Congress Party. This, of course, ignores the horrors comprising religious lynchings, forced conversions and even revised constitutional laws discriminating against religious minorities, all perpetuated or sanctioned by the ruling party.
With such polarisation, it is no wonder many an economics student, while scratching their head, decided to pursue this topic, or a political scientist studied this hoping for a ‘eureka’ moment.
What needs to be understood is how vital good governance is. No matter the political system, if governmental and social institutions are weak, there will be uncertainty. Where human rights are not protected, there will be revolts; whatever Qaddafi did for his people, political oppression resulted in his ouster. If people are happy, cared and valued, even within an absolute monarchy, there can be political and economic stability.
The job then, of any government regardless of political system, is to strengthen its institutions and respect its populace.
