Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Chickens come from eggs, but eggs come from chickens. So, what originally gave rise to the other? This is a question that dogged ancient philosophers as they wrestled with the questions of the universe and life. By now we know that evolution might have played a part in bringing about the domesticated chicken, and thereby making it to come first and lay eggs for self perpetuation. 

By the same token, in this day and age, as Uganda and similar countries desire to be developed, it is appropriate to ask: Which should come first, political freedom or economic freedom? 

Looking at contemporary history, what do the experiences of the Soviet Union, China and others tell us or not tell us? 

 Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on a political reform as he was cheered by the West but, because economic reform lagged behind, he became the architect of the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Now Putin has taken an iron grip of Russia, the father of the Soviet Union, and with a wealth lifeline of oil and gas it is flexing its chest in a renewed sense of national confidence. Putin is a god and the Russian people are economically appreciative even as political freedom gets the boot.  

Deng Xiaoping, the survivor of Mao’s repressive years, approached his reform differently. He will probably be noted as the father of globalization as he helped catapult the American free-market idea to new heights and made China a formidable powerhouse. And the Chinese are happy with themselves even as they lack political freedom. 

Many of the Asian Tigers seem to have developed along the Chinese model of economic freedom first and, may be, political freedom later—Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia are examples. 

Even many western countries did not start off as the practitioners of political freedom before heralding in economic freedom. Kings, potentates and robber barons lorded over labor of the masses to build great wealth that formed the groundwork from which present-day developed economies metamorphosed.  

While modern Japan’s political freedom and economic freedom seem to have grown simultaneously, it is likely that the economic groundwork was laid under pre-war dictatorship of Imperial Japan.

Even India had its own native potentates, in addition to the British who may have laid the basics from which present-day democracy and liberal economy grew simultaneously. 

Historically then it seems that economic freedom preceded political freedom for most peoples. On the surface it would seem that Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is falling in lockstep. Does it then follow that developing countries have to go through repressive regimes via liberal economies before the political space is liberalized? 

It is possible that, if authoritarian regimes embarked on massive infrastructure build up, they could lay the groundwork for economic takeoff. The few like Obote and Nkrumah continued where the colonial dictatorships left off but never survived to see their handy work come to fruition.  Many of the potentates who followed were and are more concerned with their personal aggrandizement and survival than any genuine commitment for up-lifting the lot of their peoples. And, in the world of instant news and universality of liberal thoughts, the dictators are a dying breed, surviving only by the grace of their benefactors who will discard them like condoms when their use date passes. 

What does this leave us with? We don’t need to re-invent the wheel. Liberalization of both the economy and the political space can go hand-in-hand to bring progress, peace, and harmony in society. Isn’t that what the end result should be about?