Most champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself-promote development and enhancement of social welfare - they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical split - ‘Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?’ - Often came, at least to start with, from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful - through the 1970s and 1980s and even later - in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.
To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning.) The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy: Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization - important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.
If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is ‘conducive to development’, we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the ‘constituent components’ of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.
What does a ‘constitutive’ connection between democracy and development imply?
The passage explicitly states in its final paragraph that "political liberties and democratic rights are among the 'constituent components' of development." This implies that these elements areintrinsic to the very definition and essence of development, rather than merely being external tools or means to achieve it. Aconstitutive connectionsignifies that these rights and liberties are integral parts of what development fundamentally entails, particularly when development is understood in a broader sense focusing on human lives and freedom.
Option (a): The passage distinguishes between a "constitutive connection" and "external links." It argues that the relationship should be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, "rather than only through their external links." This indicates that external links represent an instrumental relationship, which is precisely what the passage moves beyond to define a deeper, integral connection.
Option (b): The passage broadens the understanding of development beyond mere economic indicators like GNP or industrialization. It emphasizes "the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy," with a focus on "human lives." Therefore, stating that political and civil rights only lead to economic development narrows the scope of development in a way that contradicts the passage's comprehensive definition, which includes political liberties and democratic rights as constituent components of development itself, not just as a means to economic growth.
Option (d): As option (c) is directly supported by the text, this statement is incorrect.