Conservative Party MP and leadership candidate Kemi Badenoch greet people as she arrives at Britain's Conservative Party's annual conference in Birmingham, Britain, September 28, 2024.
If I was an American, I would be a staunch Republican Party voter. And if I was an Englishman, I would be leaning towards the Conservatives.
The reasons are obvious. I hold strong conservative values on matters economy. Conservatives hold the view that governments are best when they govern least hence the mantra of small governments. Large governments tax their own people more to sustain themselves. And they make commerce more laborious and expensive through demand for various licences and permits.
Think of any person wishing to establish a business. Such a person has two main worries. First is where to get capital. Of course governments do not render any capital to entrepreneurs except in select institutions that target minorities, youth and gender.
One has to seek support from banks whose loans are expensive.
The second worry are a myriad of government licences. These include a number of environmental, public health. County and statutory bodies permits.
Conservative administrations tend to reduce these bureaucratic processes and make governments efficient. In the American State of Texas, for example, Conservatives chose local assembly members who pledged to reduce their sessions. I will ensure local parliament meets only once in a year, reads one 1930s aspirant’s manifesto.
Efficient government
The idea is simple: the more parliament meets, the more it comes up with regulations that hinder business. With this in mind, a conservative typically supports a parliamentarian who pledges to reduce their sittings and consequent regulations. Of course some have a socially conservative agenda unlike their liberal leftwing rivals. This is music to the years of those of us whose parents tutored us the importance of church and religion.
However, even a conservative should appreciate the role of a good and efficient government. And the best way to do this is to scan around nations and see how they differ and the impact of these differences in the economic outcome of their people.
Mexico and USA share a border. However, America is on average eight times richer than Mexico. South and North Korea are basically one people who speak a common language, share culture and a border. But North Korea is 30 times poorer than South. Then there is the case of the Dominican Republic, which is 10 times richer than it's only neighbour Haiti.
China is now a resurgent economic power but it's fellow Chinese societies of Singapore and Taiwan are many times richer.
So, what explains these economic differences?
I would argue it all depends on institutions — or rather the different forms of governmental institutions that apply to these countries.
The book "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty " by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson indicates pluralistic political institutions have necessary incentives to allow competitive economic forces that fosters growth.
All societies have powerful and not- so- powerful social classes. Governments that are insular and inward looking embed the privilege of the powerful class. That leads to subjugation of the poor who have two choices. Either to resist or exit the society through immigration. Both options come with costs.
Pluralistic governments create pressure valves through which the poor discontent is channelled. These include picketing, demonstrations and litigations among others.
Some level of government interventions can be life-changing. Those interventions rebalance society and strengthen a nation. When this works well, everyone is happy because the rich cannot prosper in the midst of poverty.
Guarantee success
If you are a huge business owner, you need prosperous customers to buy your commodities. If you are a huge land owner, you need healthy employees to farm your land. If you are a landlord, you need prosperous tenants to pay your rent.
But governmental interventions have to be well thought out to guarantee success.
Take, for instance, the education sector. Government scholarships that target orphans and students with disabilities from poor background can transform lives.
In agricultural, providing poor farmers with certified seeds can boost agricultural output — something the Chinese government did in the 1990s.
In healthcare, Thailand’s health system is well regarded and is an example of life-changing State intervention.
Government interventions in infrastructural projects definitely make societal progress. Leaving the people to their own devices may therefore not be so wise.
Dr Kangata is the Governor of Murang’a County; Email: [email protected]
