MONOGRAPH ON DICTATORSHIP, DEMOCRACY, AND DEVELOPMENT MANCUR OLSON

The Author is trying to argue initially why anarchy is not a good form of society as it doesn’t have
peace and stability. In order to find the question of whether peaceful environment can emerge from
a voluntary association or not, the author gives the example of a small society. The author logically
argues for expecting a generally peaceful order to emerge in small groups by voluntary agreement,
but not in large populations. This is so because the net benefits each member of family as a whole
derive from being part of the cooperation is much more than their individual or family contribution
due to the small size of the group. This logical conclusion is also seen in the anthropological studies
of small primitive groups characterised by decision by consensus then by a leader, even when a
primitive group break up then also smaller groups so formed show similar behaviour.

But as seen in large scholarly literature, this behaviour cannot be replicated in larger groups
of voluntary actions having collective goals. Hence the scholar rejects the “social contract”
method of organising society through mutual agreement. Instead what is seen in real world
is the rule of an authoritarian leader which is explained through the example of an Chinese
Warlord during early 20th century in China who changed from a “roving bandit” to a
“stationary bandit” and monopolised the area for its benefit. Also it is beneficial for the
locals as other than “tax theft”, they are benefitted by predictable policy, no outside threat.
This increases productivity which is further aided by providing public services like roads etc
as it helps the warlord get more tax. It is further argued that warlord finally reaches a
“revenue maximization rate” for which it gets maximum tax.
Finally, the debate is shifted to benefits to “majority” which is meant as democracy in the
article which provides advantages like revenue maximization rate being lower then dictator
type system as there is flourishing of market which “invisible hand” of market benefits all
from which tax is also received. Secondly, majority sorts the issue of succession, which in a
dictatorial government is absent ( successor leader may not be as good as the previous) but
since in majority people have a say, quality is maintained. Thirdly, in majority is there is
protection of rights of property and impartial contract enforcement which is absent in
autocracies as there is absence of unbiased judiciary. Often capital shifts from dictatorial
countries to democratic ones due to such reasons. But evidence of dictatorial governments
with good economic policies are also seen. Democracy would most likely arise
spontaneously if a person or group leader orchestrating the overthrow of an autocracy could
not establish another autocracy

My own understanding:
In all the sequence of events, it is evident that rational self interest is the driving force which
benefits the economic system of the society and society benefitting from it. But reality is
that, although terms like warlord are used in the example but still the work done by
autocratic is like democratic government who charges high tax. But democracies are also
not perfect as most Marxian scholars argue that such positions of power are always held by
elites while masses are at the receiving end.
So it can concluded that the name of the form of government is not main question.
Question should be how much the citizens are empowered to decide their own society
especially the local level. For that first all of citizens must themselves be capable and
functionings be there in right place as talked about by Amartya Sen. Also the public
institutions like the election commission, CAG, lokpal, CBI and other regulatory bodies
should be strengthened and shouldn’t be functioning according the person in charge, rather
they should be transparent and independent. Finally, the active role of public intellectuals,
civils society, media etc is also very crucial for a healthy society. Noam Chomsky in his essay
The Responsibility of Intellectuals speaks of the importance talks of this issue. Shrinking
space of public debate in a society is symptomatic of its decaying nature. So no matter what
terminology is used but such factors need to be functioning in a healthy society.