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.
According to the passage, what should be the ultimate assessment/aim/view of development?
The passage explicitly states that "The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy." This indicates that the ultimate assessment of development, according to the passage, is the extent of real freedom citizens experience. Political liberties and democratic rights are presented as "constituent components" of development, not merely external links or indirect contributors to economic growth.
Option (A): The passage refers to "a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization" as "important as they may be as means to the real ends," rather than the ultimate assessment or aim of development. These are considered instrumental, not constitutive, of true development.
Option (B): While GNP is mentioned, it is categorized as a "means" and not the "real ends" of development. The passage emphasizes that development cannot be seen "merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP." The focus is on human lives and real freedom, which go beyond composite indices like the Human Development Index (HDI) as the ultimate aim.
Option (C): The passage does not identify "rise in the savings and consumption trends" as the ultimate assessment or aim of development. Its focus is on the qualitative aspects of human lives and the real freedoms enjoyed by people, rather than purely economic trends.