I think that people will always be more interested in their own personal economic state because that is what affects them more directly on a daily basis. I think that people can become more interested in the political system that is helping their own economic growth, but this still means that economic reform has to come first. Trying to do both at the same time will overstretch resources and people's patience.

I think it is important to distinguish between certain types of economic development. In the interest of their own survival, many dictatorships are reluctant to oversee a form of development that could eventually result in their overthrow. For example, they attempt to repress workers' groups that could become politicized, and fear a growing and educated middle class. Also, since economic policy is driven by a centralized cadre of leaders, there is a greater likelihood that economic results will vary between enormous successes or dramatic failures. Without checks on corruption, economic development in dictatorships can tend to benefit a small class of elites at the expense of lower classes whose attempts to protest the status quo are met with repression. It seems that a democracy or a transitioning country would be more prone to promote economic development that can benefit all citizens. Much research has shown that democracy does not have to be sacrificed for economic development to take place. See Przeworski's paper: http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2800/sisson.pdf

Economic reform must come first. Before people are willing to play with political reform, they must be able to feed their families. Good infrastructure, power for electricity, sanitation for clean water, etc. are fundamental.

I think that simultaneous political and economic development is best, but it rarely happens.
I think most people think about the well-being of themselves and their families primarily in a material sense of meeting basic needs more than a sense of political rights.

I think most people in the Arab world, don't care as much about whether the system is democratic or not, they care about having food on the table, safety on the streets, healthcare for their loved ones. But if that isn't happening yet under such a centralized system, maybe a more democratic system will get them there.

Also, in the cases of countries in transition, I think it is possible to embark on long-term democratic development before economic development has taken off. For example, in Mauritania, the country has just completed a transition to democratic governance while still remaining one of the poorest countries in the world. That said, the transition will most likely not be complete until Mauritanian citizens begin to reap the benefits of democratic governance. In Mauritania's case, this means improvements to standards of living and socio-economic status. If the government cannot deliver on these goods, it is possible the democratic progress will backslide.

It can happen simultaneously, but it must be a coordinated effort that is inclusive of all the major players in society. Only through a broad coalition can this joint effort be achieved.

In fact, I think that it is necessary for economic and political development to take place simultaneously. If a country's economy develops too quickly without simultaneous political development, citizens can lose interest in the political process, because they feel their needs are being met. For example, countries in the Gulf have experienced rapid economic development as oil prices have risen exponentially. Very few political gains have been made.