Yes to government aid for non-democratic states

Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe - should governments support the principle of giving aid to these countries, run by non-democratic regimes? Yes.

The argument for not giving aid often goes like this: by giving government aid, we grant an undeserved patina of legitimacy for the oppressive regime. We have a duty as a Western democratic government to exert political pressure on unjust governments. Pressures and condemnations from the international arena can unsettle regimes: we saw in this in South Africa under the apartheid and arguably, in Burma (who held their first, albeit rigged, elections since 1990 this month.) However, by giving aid we are effectively condoning their actions. In order to help their citizens in the long-term (for greater freedoms) we must make the sacrifice now.

This short-term pain, long-term gain argument does not stand. It lies on the assumption that democracy is somehow the only good form of government - all other systems are wrong. This is a typical elitist Western view. Other good forms of government do exist. Pakistan under Musharaff was undeniably more stable than it is now. Under military rule, their citizens were safer. Now, although democratic, they are plagued by insurgency. Authoritarian Communist rule in China has been good for its people - their economy is booming and the middle class are rising. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that a non-democratic state automatically equates to a system that is bad for its people.

Besides, even if we accept perhaps democracy is the ideal form of government, logic still dictates that we should give aid to non-democratic governments. There are three grounds for this.
First, by not giving aid we are only penalising the people we claim to support, not their oppressors. The citizens are the ones who will suffer as a result of our inaction. Surely we have a moral duty to meet their humanitarian needs as opposed to making a counter-productive political statement of condemnation. I say counter-productive for a reason: not giving aid only serves to strengthen the position of the dictator. As he has a monopoly over all forms of media, he will be able to turn his population against the West - the "foreign oppressors who do not help."
Second, giving aid will actually help the shift to democracy - which is the presumably, the aim of those who oppose giving aid to non-democratic governments in the first place. Aid helps to develop the country in terms of infrastructure. The population become richer and more educated. As a result, the people can no longer be ignored as they put more effective pressure on their governments. This has happened in China. As the middle class have risen, the Chinese government have increasingly become more liberal (although not perfect) towards its people. This is in stark contrast to places like North Korea, where the population can be easily oppressed because most are just peasant and hence - powerless. Thus, there is a link between giving long-term aid and the population developing. When the country develops, greater freedoms become inevitable.

Governments across the world must continue to give aid to non-democratic governments - it is the moral and practical way.