The multi-party democracy is supportive and useful for the economic growth of developing country only when the parties have at least some common goals and ideologies towards national benefit. If there is absolute heterogeneity .in approaches, goals and ideologies in spite of well defined constitutional goals, approaches and ideologies,it creates chaos. for instance what is happening in India to-day.

The short answer is multiparty is better for a democracy. However, you need more than that.

You have to read this

http://democracyweb.org/node/49

Thank you all for the contributions

Dear Ovat Bassey

I will answer based upon experience more than academic knowledge. Let us look at Brazil's situation. After the end of the so-called Military Regime (1964-1984), with the back of civilian to power, mainly with the Federal Constitution of October 5th 1988, we witnessed the raising of multipartidarism, but few parties could effectively settled by themselves, and the system for financing politic parties stood based on citizen taxes. The worst part of this configuration is that old bipartdary system, although split, keep attached to main ideologies of populism and patrimonialism, All the fight are aiming at power rather than to public good or wealth. So we had some parties of high expression as Labor Party, Social Democrats, and Party of the Democratic Movement, but all of them acted as Fabian Scissor - a system of false mutual opposition, which means that these parties were and are actually not opposed one to another, but the seem to act so. All of them make promises under social labels (fight against poverty, hunger, lack of habitation etc).Nevertheless, all of them criticise one another, and act under a floppy political system that is permissive with corruption. As result, they catch funding from big companies, and argue that it is usual, it is not wrong. I think that our last Constitution allowed too much rights and less duties. I am far from being authoritarian, but a Constitution cannot give more rights than duties - it should give the sama amount of both. Corruption is what growth when we have no power rotation, and when citizen does not participate because of omission and ignorance, as well as because of selfishness - when each one think only about their particular concerns. So, looking at other examples as U.S., they have the same old Constitution, they have GOP and DEM as parties, and it works - although they have problems as well. I think that partidary pluralism is of less worth when people does not have self criticism and think only in their own sake. Right now I am reading Thomas Paine, and I can realise how relevant is the position of citizen and their involvement regarding the country constitution. I do agree, all men have rights, but also duties, and we need to balance these two sides of the coin. As Paine refused the monarchy, I refuse the idea of an absolute party in the power, as we have for 14 years, and I refuse the false pluripartidarism, as it is disguised as the Fabian scissor - that does not cut absolutism as an usual scissor could do. Best regards.

Thanks Judith A T for adding your thoughts.. It is true that the success of perfect democracy depends on multi party system but delivering of justice within the framework of Constitution depends on ideology and election manifesto of these political parties. it again depends upon the nature and functioning of the political parties and their civic-responsibilities..

Perhaps what we are saying is that technically 'good' democracy is not correlated with strong economic growth.  And I do not believe it is.  However, that is not necessarily a bad thing, or even unexpected.  The metrics of economic growth are not themselves correlated with individual well-being in the economic context of neoliberal principles and models.  The Brundtland Report made that very clear in 1987, and was accepted by the international community.  But it continues to be ignored and this correction to economic science is still not taught in schools.  This has the consequence that many researchers today still pose questions that are inappropriate simply because they do not understand that the 'axioms' upon which their 'knowledge' is based are simply the dogma of an anachronistic belief system based upon 18th century ideas of society and well-being.

Mr Shapiro, a senior policy advisor at the economically conservative Cato Institute in Washington DC, made the following revealing statement to the camera in an Al Jazeera report broadcast this week "My aim is to protect individual liberty NOT to empower democracy!".   It is therefore to be inferred that neoliberal policies as championed by amongst others the Cato Institute are seen as the political and economic policy vehicle for advancing the self-interest of individuals in a competitive economic scenario in which the only goal is to maximise individual power and wealth as measured by the monetary value of whatever 'assets' can be invented, created and held.  Democracy is reputed to have as its aim to ultimately facilitate the universally experienced perception of well-being and to build that up into our future and that of our descendants.   Perceptions of well-being are mostly exogenous to the neoclassical / neoliberal economic models (cf. Brundtland, UN Charter and the UN Charter on Human Rights and many other international statements which begin with the pharse "We the People..." ).  The conflict of interest is therefore systemic in any context where both democratic and neoclassical / neoliberal goals are being presented by the government and the politicians directing it.  To the extent that they are unaware of this institutionalised paradox they are incompetent in their position.  To the extent that they are aware but continue to tell the electorate that they only represent their interests but that they can only do so by promoting the interests of our economic institutions through neoclassical / neoliberal policies then they are cognisant of their hypocrisy and therefore morally evil, and should be held as being criminally liable.  That is if the democracies which they rule were any more than just a suitably misleading label.

Multi-party democracy in the real world is prone to the creation of coalition governments.  This makes the coordination of the aims and hence actions of government politicians and departments with those of commerce and industry more difficult. 

A de-facto two-party system generally assures a single party in power at any one time and retains an element of tension which can be exploited by business from term to term to keep a degree of stability in their coordination with and controlling influence over policy making.  This also stabilises the functioning and coordination of government agencies with business in a manner which is independent of the political 'game show' presented for public consumption and electioneering. 

By comparison to the two-party 'turn taking' system, the instability of rotating multiple governments with widely divergent policies, as well as the perpetual haggling without significant actions resulting from it, both of which characterise multi-party coalition government move the nexus for government coordination with business down into the departments of government, its agencies and upon their agents.  This focus on unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and even public clerks, where much of what they do is statutorily covered by secrecy and confidentiality regulations inevitably requires of business the use of ways to influence other than political party funding, independent supportive 'marketing' and the private deals with politicians who have influence amongst their fellows.  Instead it requires direct bribery and corruption in all its more subtle forms.

Please, please remember... everyone.  Economics is a Behavioural Science.  It is a branch of Sociology that is to do with how we relate to each other in those activities and behaviours that we engage in in order to physically survive, procreate and be happy while working towards the grander dreams we have for our developing knowledge, abilities and capabilities so that we may have that life and more of it.  And ultimately to survive as a species... for ever. 

It is not a physical science based upon 'laws' and nor can it be described by immutable deterministic processes, nor by using only the tools of mathematics and neither is it a search which, through applying mathematical or pure philosophical  logic, will discover and describe that  natural system' whose establishment now  amongst us was set in motion by the creation of the universe.

Economics is not about accepting what we have as the natural order of things and working out how to preserve and protect it while trying to understand why the tenants of the belief system it is are not delivering the benefits for everybody that it claims.  

It is about clearly identifying what is the morality and belief system of today (and not that of Georgian England) that is seminal to all peoples across the globe to which they can all subscribe and integrate with those that already shape and support their lives positively.  It is then our task to help people to envision what is required economically, politically and socially in their contexts which will enable them to begin to build the institutions, based on those morals and those beliefs, such that the aims and goals that they infer can be robustly, durably, and resiliently sustained and which can be integrated at a global level and for all individuals.

It is no accident that the world financial institutions, sitting at  the apex of the structures, institutions through which businesses worldwide and government central banks coordinate themselves are NOT actually organs of the United Nations but are independent of that organisation.  In their apparently close association we see a repeat of the same systemic institutionalised conflict of interest as in democratic nation-states but now it is between the goals of the powerful individualist neo-classical paradigm and that of the paradigm espousing universal individual well-being.  

Contributors here have shown how systemic differences amongst too many political parties tends to confusion and uncertainty that impacts upon economic growth and encourages corruption of democratic government by business  because nobody is able to plan with any confidence.  Bribery creates some form of security for investors and in the holding on to existing sources of business,  The same applies to our organs of international management and 'social vision'.  Taken together one immediately sees the systemic conflicts of interest which exist between them.  This suits proponents of individual competitive economics for just as 'confused' or 'managed' national democracies provide diversion for our populations whilst their are nurtured into lives of producing and consuming in which more gross effort value is input by each individual than is the gross effort value that they consume. 

At an international scale, where trade networks and 'exchanges' are required to facilitate the longish-term viability of these national value factories the World Bank, IMF and so on (refer to Paul Kennedy 'The parliament of Man' for more detail of these structures)  are for business the international systemic equivalent of national political structures and governments.   On the other hand the full panoply of the United Nations organisation creates the public relations counter-weight and diversionary side-show that safely keeps the world's population and most of its intelligentsia in enthral and safely distracted from the main game.

Economics, if it has any academic integrity as a pursuit of behavioural science, is the study of this reality....  not the deep examination of 250 year old religious texts and the deliberations of the interpretations of their acclaimed 'imams' and 'saints' over the intervening years.  Adam Smith was no Isaac Newton, Bentham was no Einstein and Milton Friedman was no Gandhi!  Who, amongst you all, are? Or will be?

If we accept multiparty democracy that is supportive for growth of developing country. We should accept Thomas Hodgkin’s definition of political parties as, “all organizations which regard themselves as parties and which are so generally regarded.”  In a stable polity, the government in the opposition should co-exist and work peacefully  towards the attainment of national security, political stability and economic development. Multiparty work for the continued achievements of positive growth in areas of the economy  such as  commerce and industry, tourism, mining, agriculture and infrastructure development.  We  shall ensure through parties  that work goes on continued   prudent   management   of   our   public   resources   that proves transparent and accountable system of  governance.

Dear Kiran,  While I fully appreciate and endorse what you are emphasising the fact is that political parties are also organisations of people and not idealistic avatars.  They individually have self-interest and self-ambition.  There is competition for control because control provides power.  In turn, because they are human and in the political system essentially unregulated, the personal opportunities of power are generally more attractive, if safely available, than those available from self-less cooperative focus upon the development of the country...  a project as you so rightly point out is what they are all jointly mandated by their public to apply their minds too and for which they get paid.  Unfortunately in the existing range of ;institutional landscapes' available within modern democracies there exist inducements fare more attractive to the individual.  These are all perfectly ignored externalities in our perfectly conceived mathematical development planning exercises.  Until we are presented with the framework for an axiomatic set of behavioural principles AND obligations upon which we can build one institutional landscapes within a different paradigm we can only wish.  And dream.

Regards,  Robin

At present in India, multi party democracy is the best suited option. But there are some demerits. Opposition parties always deny the good things associated with the ruling parties and highlight the bad things and vice-versa. Now audio visual media has become very strong and both the audio visual and print media follow the principle that, only bad news is the news and good news are not news. In such environment common people get confused. 

When people are confused they withdraw from political involvement and interaction.  The void in principles of governance that this creates gives a freedom of action and interaction amongst the remaining stakeholders..  politicians and business.  A de facto autocracy emerges within a veneer of periodic displays of democratic 'activity' in the form of elections.   The 'battles' between politicians can be seen in terms of the descriptions of bureaucracy provided ever since Rousseau ( probably by Roman Empire and Ancient Greek commentators also) in which organisational position and status provide power and self-actualisation.  Patronage is the moving force in a bureaucracy and we see that within political parties from rank and file members through to electoral nominees and up to those elected and become portfolio holders when in government.  The electorate simply become 'gatekeepers' along the promotional path between unelected party nominees and the elected party representatives.  Between elected members of different parties, in private, one typically sees great camaraderie displayed...  especially when negotiating extensions to the governing structures, often at the local and regional levels.  This is driven by the opportunities created for posts to be filled and jobs to be created amongst them as a group (greater employment opportunity within their chosen profession) and not by a conscious commitment to the principles of joint responsibility and cooperation that your ideal would expect of them.   The alienation and withdrawal of the electorate, by the aforesaid confusion, also opens the door for what is described in Whitehall as the DAD strategy ... Decide, Announce, Defend.  There is also a culture of decision making which is characterised by face-to-face 'deal making' rather than studied consideration and voting upon the facts of any matter.  As a consequence details and the logic of any decision is rarely if ever available to the public as a result and this compounds their withdrawal from matters of governance and accelerates the transformation of democratic practices and models into those of plutocracy and autocracy.  The establishing of the West Midlands Combined Authority here in the UK is ongoing and from last night's Fabian Society feedback by local 'left' politicians MP, MEP, Councillor and senior advisor would appear to be an ongoing object lesson in the social psychology of group dynamics that I have alluded to.  Rather than it being the exercise in 'democratic devolution' which is how the government and 'insiders' publicise it to their electorate.   As a phenomenon it appears to have its roots in the civilisation and subjugation strategy of the Romans towards the early tribes in Britain 2,000 years ago.  They used the urbanisation and centralisation of local economic activity as a conscious strategy of efficient governance and control.  The 6 of the 7 regional councils upon which the Conservative national government has decreed the construction and form of 'their own' Combined Authority are controlled by the opposition left Labour party.  The members of the combined authority, except for the figure head non-partisan 'personality' will be unelected nominees from local politicians and big business organisations.  The democratic 'interface' between it and the local authorities has not yet been defined.  But it came into being last week.

The mass media, audio visual and print, are not philosophers nor are they informed observers.  they are reporters, reporting what is presented to them.  If most of what they see and what is given to them follows the dominant views then what they report will be dominated by that message.  They will not be able to advise the public on the logic of the decisions they report because the process is not one of representation, debate and voting (as the democratic process is presented) but one of private negotiation and pragmatic deal making between individuals who are not first and foremost the banner bearers and defenders of the interests of those that voted for them.  Amelioration of confusion amongst those for whom democracy is claimed to exist is not therefore possible under the Westminster model.  The Westminster model provides for the governance and accommodation of the population in a state of peace, order and preferably tranquillity, such that business may flourish and its benefits 'trickle down' by Mr Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' from those to whom the created wealth accrues.  The mechanism being through their high propensity to consume lavishly.  The Brundtland Commission debunked the neoclassical model as a rational theory three decades ago.  Today it is simply no more than a belief system, systemic to modern democracy.  a religion endemic amongst global and national politicians.  Development economists employ, different usually more realistic models of economic interactions.

The way forward is not immediately hopeful.  Multi-party situations are clearly to be preferred.  My instinct and my understanding of human behaviour and of history suggest that democracy can only operate according to the model which describes it amongst individuals who have a systemic stake in the value that they produce within the societies that they comprise.  This is a  characteristic of the actual implementations of all systems of governance.  From totalitarian dictatorship all the way through to the full democracy of a self-sufficient jungle community of 150 people or less.

The axiomatic behaviours which operate under are described in my submission  hereon RG 'Vox Populi' .  If you consider system development and evolution from these principles one can always arrive at the myriad structures and systems that we see, and which all suffer the same consequences that negatively influence the development of pervasive states of well-being.

I am moving out along a methodology which explores the consequences of adapted axiomatic behavioural sets in the development of societal structures and outcomes so as to inform future debate and developments that will lead to the sustainable, durable and resilient societies which are systemically able to deliver universal well-being and which implement fully operative democratic governance.

Best Regards,

Robin

Multiparty democracy can enhance growth and economic development if and only if  the parties have one policy or there is a lay-down policy that all the parties should follow irrespective of your political philosophy.    And if the political parties can take the interest of the country into account and not to look for selfish interest of there party members.

@bakpa:  I agree.  In the end for a society to advance it needs to have agreement at the very least upon its values and goals amongst its peoples.  This should always come from the people themselves.  The pity is that once you have more than a few thousand people involved we have never developed the communication infrastructures,as a societal institution that can effectively enable this common vision to be established and maintained.  This failing is aided and abetted by individuals who see the need and then fill the gap with their own charismatic gifts and self-centred visions and impose their own visions on society as a cover for fulfilling their own self-interests.  That si why a constitution is so important, that is independently and effectively defended by an independent judicial process, that is also independent of the legislature and the 'normal judiciary and it is the constitution to which the institutions of power, ie.e police and military, owe their allegiance and in the end are beholden to.  the RSA has made lots of progress in that direction and would be in a far worse situation now if had not been for that fact.  The Western world has still not emulated them and probably never will so long as the self-interest exercised by those who have already gained power over their legislatures remains unchallenged.  They are the role models for those you struggle against.  But it is not 'policy' that needs to be unified, it is your values and norms and goals commonly held and acclaimed by every individual that must be consistent, and a consistent absence of and close monitoring of and bringing to account of deviations from that constitutional position.   If your values respect the elites, whether economic or political or military, then you will never be equal.  If those with those duties respect you, then there is a chance.  That is the reason for constitutions and an absolute respect for them... if they were formulated in a valid way in the first instance and are then defended for ever.  

Interesting perspective, but you also may be conscious that there are several countries illusions and values under different generations as well as groups ethics, minorities, etc. So in many aspect we are dealing with a set of societies, not just one. It is a difficult task to achieve because split the power to several groups also deal with the different mechanisms of each political parties have to communicate and negotiate their relationship with society or voters. Once the society moved toward multi-parties and parliamentary democracies it is also a tension on the power of each of those minorities parties to block society decision making process.

@Leiner,  I entirely agree with you.  Dani Rodrik in his book 'The Globalization Paradox' provides some good insight to this whole problem area.  I have a few pages left to read his final conclusions, but the main body of text provides much food for further thought that is specific to Ovat's question.

Rodrik and Ovat would seem to be choosing not to question the mantra that periodic growth in the, monetary or PPS, value of the GDP of a society is the prime requisite for increasing the well-being of a society and of those of which it is comprised. Even within this assumption, Rodrik has shown pretty convincingly that each developing society ( i.e. economy ) needs to have, at least, the policy-space in which to be agile while single-mindedly following a path that maximises its production, and retention of value, from utilising its own internal resources and capacities. While expanding and developing, internally, the skills, knowledge and experience which will be needed to survive should the economy, eventually and gradually, be opened to those specific large-scale opportunities in international trade which can sometimes be identified.  Even then, for smaller countries - a group within which nearly all developing societies sit - a doctrinaire approach to permanent openness, just as much to permanent protection, is ill advised in the long-term both economically and also socially,... if the goal is to fairly and permanently benefit the well-being of the maximum number of permanently settled resident families.

This is the issue. What is the real goal of growth?  Democracy, in general, sells itself to populations with the narrative that all policy decisions are taken with the goal of fulfilling the long-term best interests of all citizens, within the local context, subject only to those external constraints as cannot be avoided.  In general the actual implementation of this proposition is a myth. It is so because it lies on a philosophical foundation of morality and ethics, and hence of societal goals, which is inconsistent with the moral philosophy, and societal goals, which underlies the proposition by which measures of growing GDP can be accepted as conclusive of growing well-being amongst those working to produce it. Well-being is a phrase common to both traditions, but each defines, recognises and measures them very differently.

Rodrik shows that there is a significant consensus that attributes long-term sustained GDP-type growth to sustained periods of falling transaction costs between economic entities.  He shows that this is not purely a technological matter.  It is critically also a matter dependant upon the existence, or rapid development, of the institutional infrastructure that is appropriate to economic exchanges, i.e. trade transactions, being reliably and safely conducted within the 'societal', or meta-societal, context in which it occurs.   Historically, in periods when long-distance transportation of goods was difficult and expensive, most exchanges took place locally and was supported by appropriate local institutions - beginning with the rules of barter, expanding to the use of money.. and including the taxation of economic activity to pay for the institutional infrastructures to support it and so keep the overall cost of transactions lower than they might have been.

But...  with economic advantage comes economic power and with that the power to define and control the institutional landscape of a society.  Out of which grows immediately the temptation, or a sincere belief in one's divine right, to define and control that landscape to ones own, or one's family’s or friends' economic advantage even further.  This works well in the context of developing an economy, if you understand what you are trying to achieve and fully appreciate the uncertain and reactive path of changing policy and institutional forms that will be required of you.

For those countries that were first to expand their trade and hence their economies over the past 300 years, they began with an almost absolute correspondence between economic and political power within a moral hegemony and institutional landscape designed to perpetuate that.  Democratic joint-decision making in the interests of anybody except those with the knowledge, skill and power to make those decisions that were needed had no place in that world.  But.. success brought a growing dependence upon the productivity and hence willingness of the people doing the productive work.  They needed a narrative that gave them hope that their interests would in fact be served by cooperating with a reality that had in fact taken more away from most of them over a few generations than it had returned. Out of this, not many years ago - about 70 in fact - the pragmatic narrative of Democracy became absorbed ias an add-on, and a covering, to the underlying commercial and social narrative embedded in the institutional landscape and particularly those institutions which related to economic activities and concepts.  The behaviours of each had adapted, the post-holders had learned and developed skills which enabled the systemic contradictions and structural incongruities of hat had been created to be well-hidden.  Together, and with many other adjustments, this hybrid societal structure was able to present itself as a integral whole, the effulgence of a noble ideal - a modern democracy.  Not just one.  There were a good dozen or two.  After 1945, when they had stopped fighting each other to a stand still, these countries - in full flush of increasingly 'believing their own advertising - entered a 30 year period of rapid growth in their GDP's that no only convinced them of the conceptual power of Democracy, as they simplistically understood it and sold to their electorates, they also insisted that the rest of the 'troublesome' world follow suit. 

Little did they realise that their success had been due to the boundaries, constraints and autocratic dictats which they had implemented upon themselves. and en passant and mutatis mutandis, upon the rest of the world. and which had enshrined local and intra-domain autonomy of action upon the members of the club but an international regime of tight constraints and rights to self-protection in trade between themselves.  Only when they felt successful enough to look around themselves did they begin to confidently drop the undemocratic restrictions that had given them their international advantages and start to shape themselves more closely to their imagined ideology.  A shape which they had a decade or two earlier insisted the post-war developing nations adopt, the better to advantageously to trade with them.  This unrelenting philosophy of 'liberalisation' has subsequently plunged 'the club' as well as those less well placed into increasing chaos and slow growth as well.  The only success stories, as Rodik shows, has been those 'new' countries which developed in these latter decades by re-applying many of the less liberal, and less democratic, policies and controls and bureaucratic styles of direction which 'the club' had benefited from in building themselves up.

So Ovat and Leiner...  and many apologies to Mr Rodik for taking liberties with some of what he wrote,..  Modern 'Democracy' is an ideal.  Modern Democracies were not built upon democracy.  They may be evolving towards a form which is more truly able to be observed to be democratic.  Rapid growth, as Stalin and Hitler showed, is most easily assured by autocratic and not democratic means.  One has to be able to set a plan, conserve and develop and build up ones resources while avoiding premature conflict with competitor to what you want and with those who would like to take what little you already have.  One has to nimble enough to take the tactical decisions as and particularly when they are needed.

If you can't have autocracy, and it contradicts the moral narrative of universal well-being which also includes democratic participatory opportunities and accountabilities, then you need strong and single-minded, capable, experienced and knowledgeable institutions built by yourself like any self-made man grown from being an orphan.. . or you need a 'big daddy' who is credibly committed to raising your country up through its childhood and adolescence to full-adulthood... all the while helping you build those institutional capabilities that adulthood, and its freedoms and responsibilities will demand. And who will let you free without demands when you are ready to fly.

What a dream!  For me the problem is, like Leiner identifies, one of social relationships of power and advantage.  The concept of a 'single-minded democratic society' would seem to be an oxymoron.  Even more so is the concept of a 'community of cooperating and mutually supportive democratic societies following a common over-arching goal'.  Do we call that 'polyoxymoronic'? 

But that is exactly what is implied by the existence of the United Nations organisation in the form in which it has developed since 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights became its 'battle standard'.  It is no accident that the international economic, financial and commercial institutions are not organs of the UN.  They operate by an antithetical moral and ethical philosophy.  Whatever their public protestations they are embedded in and suffused by the 18th century mores, norms and values upon which the economic systems and institutions of the world are actually built.   Now wonder thatr the world's economists and academics talk with so many contradictory voices... it rather depends whose advertising you believe and who pays the salary.

As Leiner says, the tensions between societal segments block the societal decision making process.  And so, we have a systemic conservative bias even within economics!

For Ovat we can see that China's 'miracle', India, the Asian Tigers even South Africa, through its apartheid period, have all benefited from maintaining a degree of isolation and limited multi-party democratic opportunities.  Periods during which they grew well - internally. And came out of slowly and only according to their own needs... and not following the doctrinaire and self-serving advice of stronger nations who benefited, at arm's length, from the mostly aggressive trading operations with those same recipients of their benevolent advice.

Sadly, within the present philosophical hegemony - with all of its systemic contradictions - a fully functioning multi-party democracy, without a very strong, experienced, capable, appropriate, adaptive and densely networked and interrelated institutional landscape will not easily experience rapid well-distributed and balanced growth which gives them long-term resilience, durability and effectiveness in delivering universal well-being sustained over the lifetimes of their population and the populations not yet born.  For that we will need to adapt and change the rules, accept some commonalities and understandings, learn to be single-minded where it matters and to be different and diverse where that matters and to learn above all that it is through cooperation and mutual support that humans are strong.  Internecine competition has been destructive in all cultures throughout history.  We ARE one family, on one planet.  There is lots of scope many internecine relationships, none should be over resources and selfishness.