Among theorists of development, of every political persuasion, it is almost universally assumed that democracy and development go together, in the normal course of things. The issue is seldom debated; debate turns instead on the question prompted by the rise of Marxism in developing nations and by the neo-Marxist theory of development—the question, that is, of whether developing nations have any choice between the deviant, "Prussian" road and the revolutionary norm. According to the neo‐ Marxian view, a revolutionary transfer of wealth and power to the masses releases the energies required for development. In the absence of this democratization of social relations, the only alternative (aside from continued stagnation) is the reactionary pattern of development imposed from above.

The theory of "modernization," which enjoyed a great vogue in the two decades following World War II, is best understood as a reply to this argument. Walt Rostow explicitly presented his 1961 treatise, The Stages of Economic Development, as a "non-communist manifesto." Modernization theorists attempted, in effect, to refute the contention that revolution is the one true road to the promised land. They stressed the importance of impersonal forces—urbanization, literacy, mass communications or "media growth." Their account of development allowed even less room for human initiative than the Marxist account. The process was directed, insofar as it was directed at all, by "tutelary elites," but these elites acted within narrow constraints. Once information about the modern world had begun to circulate among newly urbanized populations, it was impossible to deny the masses a place in the sun. "Exposure to modernizing influences," as Alex Inkeles put it, generated an irresistible demand for the better things of life. It led to an "openness to new experience," "increasing independence from the authority of traditional figures like parents and priests," a "belief in the efficacy of science and medicine," "ambition for oneself and one's children," and a strong interest in politics—the whole "syndrome of modernity."

Elites could neither resist the popular demand for political representa

-158-