The Democracy and Development Nexus: Exploring the Linkage

Transcription

1 International Conference on Sustaining Africa s Democratic Momentum 5 7 March 2007 Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa The Democracy and Development Nexus: Exploring the Linkage 5 7 March 2007, Johannesburg By, Program Director, W K Kellogg Foundation. Cet article est également disponible en français ; veuillez vous en procurer une copie au Point Documentation, dans la zone d'exposition. Conference Secretariat: Tel: Fax: conference@elections.org.za Website:

2 Background The issue of a possible link between development and democracy has been the preoccupation of scholars for many years now. The central question has been and continues to be, whether democracy is possible without development, and vice versa. Can a democracy thrive and become sustainable without development? Is democracy inherently a good thing? Do democratic institutions help facilitate development or hinder it? Some have cited the examples of countries such as Taiwan, Korea and even China to support the point that democracy may not always be necessary for development. On the other hand, there is some evidence, (though not conclusive), that democracy provides an enabling environment for development to take place. Of critical importance here of course is how both development and democracy are understood. This paper s major thrust is that, yes indeed there is a relationship or connection between democracy and development, but it is not a causal relationship. Understanding The Meaning Of Both Democracy And Development The major idea behind democracy is that political authority should be derived from the people. It should be anchored in the will of the people. True democracies are characterized by among others, respect and protection for basic human rights, genuine political and participatory competition (as opposed for example to one party competition), and more basic, the government that rules in a democracy is one that people have chosen in elections. Such a government is lawful and legitimate. The meaning of development has evolved over more than fifty years. It used to be seen as synonymous with economic growth. After taking many formats and going through many forms, it is now usually defined in broad terms. It certainly includes growth but it should lead to a significant and continuing improvement in the quality of life of people, particularly the poor. It also incorporates the issue of human rights, thus issues of gender and other forms of inequality must show a significant reduction. The reader will agree that both these definitions are controversial, and they can be legitimately contested. However, for the sake of this paper, we had to have a working definition and have settled for these very two with all their imperfections

3 The Link Between Democracy And Development: Examining The Arguments One of the frequently debated issues in the social sciences is this issue of the possible link between development and democracy. Some scholars have urged that yes there is a link, and that this link is causal. Others have consistently refuted any arguments of a possible link on the basis that the evidence provided is too inconclusive. Reference is sometimes made to what some view as a strong authoritarian state which they view as essential for leading a successful process of development. It is argued that only a strong authoritarian state can discipline groups bent on making too many demands and hence undermining the development agenda. As observed in the concept paper for this conference, others may even assert that democratization opens political contests that may take the form of ethnic and religious mobilization and thereby undermine the emergence of a social contract or the creation of political communities. The same concept note states that in many parts of the world such as in Latin America, there is evidence of declining support for democracy due to the perception that democracy has failed to improve peoples lives. The above questions and observations do not provide evidence of the possible causal effect (or absence of it) between democracy and development. In fact, an examination of the literature shows that there have been two major approaches to approaching this empirical issue. Some scholars have followed a theoretical and normative route, exploring the possible link on the basis of what they know about democracy and development, and the causal linkages likely to be present. The other approach has utilized case studies in order to operationalise the two concepts of democracy and development, examining the rate and character of development and drawing conclusions on any possible associations being observed in such research. Research by Przeworski (1990) led him to conclude that democratic regimes may be less capable of managing development. The reasoning here is that development involves change, and that this change may affect some voters negatively, while benefiting others. He has therefore concluded that because of this reality, governments seeking re-election would be more inclined to avoid making tough economic choices out of fear of losing support of some groups. This would naturally either slow down development, or hinder it. This is a dilemma which an authoritarian regime does not have to face. This view is generally consistent with that held by Sirowy and Inkels (1991) that the relationship between democracy and development is a negative one

4 This is why as far back as 1968, Prof. Samuel Huntington characterized the debate in terms of compatibility and conflict emphasizing that some scholars point to a compatible relationship between the two, while others see it as inherently involving conflict. Others who are not convinced by these opposing theories such as Prof. Little have argued that democracy is inherently desirable and further that the empirical record of authoritarian developing states is about as mixed as that of democratic states; and finally that, only democratic institutions give any promise to tilting economic development policies toward the interests of the poor. (p.1).the work of Compos (1994) Why Does Democracy Foster Economic Development: an assessment of the literature, is supportive of a positive relationship between democracy and development. Due to these divergent conclusions, Prof. P. Bardhan (1991) has concluded that this empirical literature is unhelpful and unpersuasive. It is unhelpful because usually it does not confirm a causal process and the results often go every which way. As a consequence, he has taken a pragmatic position that if we take a suitably broad concept of development to incorporate general well-being of the population at large, including some basic civil and political freedoms, a democracy which ensures these freedoms is, almost by definition, more conducive to development on these counts than a non-democratic regime. (p.1) Development As A Universal Persuit Since this conference is neither the place nor time for this academic discourse, we must proceed from what we know for sure about development and democracy. We know that development is a universal pursuit. Whether rich or poor, all human beings are constantly engaged in the search for means and opportunities to better their conditions of life. In virtually all our countries, this search for better conditions takes place at community level, at individual level, and at national level. At the individual level, the family is the key institutional mechanism for achieving this goal, whereas at national level, the state is in most cases the prime actor together with other institutions such as the private sector, the non-governmental sector, aid agencies, and other relevant organizations such as bilateral and multilateral agencies and others. This quest for a better quality of life is what has come to be labeled as development and efforts to define it, and the conditions under which it can be realized identified by a number of scholars. This was the preoccupation of development theory during the post second world war period and following the process of decolonization. Development theory has attempted to shed light on the causes of economic transformation in human society, as well as spelling out what governments can do in order to stimulate the process of economic growth. Those who have followed these efforts would recall the advent of so called modernization theories, the famous stages of economic growth by Rostow in the 1960s, which major focus was on the role of - 4 -

5 savings in development. Arthur Lewis s focus on what he called the dual economy writing about what he called the modern and the traditional sector. Lewis (1955) advocated for a shift from the traditional sector to a modern sector as a key activity that would increase savings and lead to growth. There were indeed other theorists such as Gunder Frank (1967) on the dependency theory, and the subsequent Brandt Report whose focus was on the relations between the wealthy countries of the North and the impoverished South and how these relations perpetuated the situation of the South. Dudley Seers, writing in the 1960s, called into question the thinking of the time particularly concerning the link between growth and development. He was among the first to indicate that in order to understand whether development is indeed taking place in a country, attention must be paid to what has been happening to poverty, and inequality. He indicated that if these had been decreasing, then we could say a country had indeed experienced development. Likewise the modernization theories have come under a lot of attack from people like Escobar (1995) who has extensively questioned what he saw as the unquestioned ethnocentrism and universalism of such approaches. The Eurocentric s implicit in development has been questioned, and the fact that such theories are largely based on the experience of Western Europe following industrialization. This one track approach has been questioned. The World Bank has also been at the centre of prescribing what development should involve and how it can be realized. It is associated with a neo-liberal paradigm which emphasizes the centrality of using free markets, and limiting the role of the state in development. Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund prescribed harsh domestic reforms on developing countries. These included currency devaluations, elimination of subsidies, trade liberalization etc. The effect of these policies on the third World, and on Africa in particular, has been widely criticized. Critiques such as Roderick (1997) for example, have argued that these policies have pushed the poorest countries further into poverty. Consequently a group critical to this neo-liberal thinking has emerged, emphasizing the angle of human wellbeing as the focus for development. According to this thinking, the role of public policy is critical in ensuring the wellfare of the poor. (See Sen, 1999). Following this approach, the Human Development Index was created by the UNDP in The Human Development Index emphasizes measures that put less emphasis on per capita income, but instead placing emphasis on those that are correlated with quality of life such as on health, education etc. In addition, the UN adopted the Millennium Declaration which led to the MDGs during the General Assembly of The eradication of poverty is the primary focus of the MDGs. Although most African countries still have to re-double their efforts to realize the MDGs, it is worth noting that little progress has been made in reducing hunger and extreme poverty in Africa. The UN has also introduced a rights based paradigm to development, which further emphasizes the fact that that growth and - 5 -

6 per capita income as indicators of development actually do not tell the whole story about the progress made towards achieving development. This is despite appreciating the fact that without growth, a country can not develop. From the above background, it is clear that although there may not be consensus about the relationship between development and democracy, it is appreciated that development is a desirable thing. It is also clear that democracy is desirable, and that the two are critical to creating a descent quality of life which can guarantee fundamental freedoms. The Quest For Development And The Democratization Effort For many formerly colonized states, the fight for independence involved demands for democracy and self rule. Different African leaders of the time correctly insisted that Africans needed to govern themselves so that regimes that would exercise authority over them could have the legitimacy to do so. During the immediate decolonization period, various countries adopted multi-party democratic systems which were soon to be replaced by military regimes and one-party systems of government. As multiparty democratic systems gave way to one-party or military regimes, Africa s socioeconomic conditions deteriorated. By 1980, Africa was undoubtedly facing an economic crisis. It had now become clear to analysts that Africa s socio-economic problems had largely to do with governance and that the economic crisis facing the continent at the time was a symptom of a crisis in governance. Explaining the continent s problems solely on the basis of exogenous factors such as collapse of commodity prices had come to be viewed as inadequate and only telling part of the story. Numerous initiatives were developed to reverse the situation. Among some of these initiatives were the Lagos Plan of Action (1980), The African Charter on People s Rights (1981), the Africa s Priority Program for Economic Recovery (1985), the Charter on Popular Participation (1990), the Cairo Agenda for Action (1995) just to name a few. The 1990s ushered in a new era in Africa, an era of hope that democracy will finally be restored on the continent. It started with the release of Nelsen Mandela from prison, followed by the independence of Namibia, and the many other multi-party democracies which have now taken root on the continent. The New partnership for Africa s development (NEPAD) adopted in 2001 is the latest of these initiatives aimed at pulling Africa out of its socio-economic situation. Governance, and in particular the institutionalization of democracy, as well as fighting poverty, are central to the NEPAD initiative. In the NEPAD document, it is stated that the poverty and backwardness of Africa stand in stark contrast to the prosperity of the developed world. (p.1) The NEPAD also states that it is generally acknowledged that - 6 -

7 development is impossible in the absence of true democracy, respect for human rights, peace and good governance and that with NEPAD, Africa undertakes to respect the global standards of democracy, the core components of which include political pluralism, allowing for the existence of several political parties and workers unions, and fair, open and democratic elections periodically organized in order to enable people to choose their leaders freely. The Peer Review Mechanism under the NEPAD initiative is a very important instrument indicating the commitment of Africa to tackling the continent s economic and political problems. Sub-regional institutions such as at the Southern African development community (SADC) are the implementation vehicles through which NEPAD is being implemented. Democracy And Development It is clear from the various observations made so far that the following are true; Ñ Ñ Ñ Ñ That the quest for democracy and development has been there for many years and that the record for achievement of any one of these two varies from country to country, and from continent to continent. Depending on what we understand by democracy and development, our notion of whether there is indeed a link, and the nature of this link would be different. Democracy as a form of government is desirable in its own right. It is a form of government where the will of the people is central and where the government of the day derives its mandate, authority and legitimacy from the people. Elections play a central role here because they are the processes through which democratic regimes are formed. That is why an election has to be free and fair. Otherwise it may not result in the creation of a legitimate government. Development is that process of a continual improvement in the quality of life of people. A democratic polity provides a vehicle for defining how this quality of life can be realized and what its content should be. This is why development has been a preoccupation of every government in Africa and continues to be, and why democracy is seen as key to achieving this development. On the basis of all the above arguments, we conclude that there is indeed a relationship between democracy and development, but the nature of this relationship is not causal. Democracy itself is a good thing in its own right. The re is no disputing the fact that the possible dignity that comes with being in a democratic setting where one has the freedom to self actualize, and where one s rights are protected, makes it a worthwhile pursuit in its own right

8 Democracy presents are far greater chance or opportunity that the laws and policies adopted with have a fit with the interests of the people. We are saying it is a greater chance because there are no guarantees on how a democracy will or has to work. There is no prototype that fits all situations. There are no guarantees for a number of possible reasons; Ñ There is always a possibility in a democracy that the majority can be wrong both in their identification of possible priorities and on the tools or policies to address such identified problems or issues. There are always situations also where majorities impose undemocratic policies on others, even if such are hurting smaller groups. Ñ Secondly, all will depend on whether that democracy is indeed working for the interests of the people. It is always possible that the system may be hijacked by a few particularly in the current times where campaign financing is causing concern generally. The interests of the majority (who in virtually all African countries are the poor), can be subordinated to those of big interests. That is why it does happen sometimes that instead of a government prioritizing the building of 50 more schools; it opts for buying of tanks and other undesirable items at that point in time. Ñ That democracy should have to demonstrate a far higher commitment to listening to the people. This usually can be seen in the status that parliament is given and whether its deliberations and motions carry any weight at all and are implemented. We all know of countries where parliaments are nothing more than rubber stamps of executive decisions and are most of the time constrained from achieving much due to its subordinate status. That voice of the people is perpetually drowned and un-heard in the country s governance particularly in countries where ministers are drawn from parliament. This system does limit the extent to which members of parliament can freely question the executive where necessary because of possibilities of spoiling one s chances of becoming a minister. Ñ The lack of a democratic culture in many of our democracies also limits the possible impact of democracy in bringing forth the voice of the people. Many people still can not link their vote with their everyday lives and conditions. Democracy can exist more in terms of formal institutions but lack the democratic culture that will free people to exercise their own thinking and conscience. This is how some politicians defeat democracy by buying votes because they know that if people exercised their own free will, they would not vote for them. Ñ It also depends on whether there is some degree of insulation of the bureaucracy and other key institutions such as the Planning Bureau etc as is the case in the most successful countries in Asia. Otherwise too much political interference and failure to give these key institutions space to do their job reduce their effectiveness. This means that just having these institutions without giving them the space they need to do their job effectively may undermine the democratic system

9 It is worth asking ourselves therefore, what kind of democracies do we have in our countries and how do they function? Do they empower the people and help facilitate development or are they not? If they are not providing this enabling role, they are indeed a barrier to development, and vice versa. Democracy And Development: Where Is The Place Of The Poor In Africa? It is clear from what we have noted so far that Africa has been pursuing the goal of development for a long time now. We noted that efforts intensified following the decolonization process. Likewise the continent has for many years dedicated itself to the realization of democracy despite the mixed record of accomplishment. What is also clear is that despite these efforts, African masses, namely, the poor in rural areas are still trapped in enormous poverty and suffering. The HIV/AIDS scourge comes within a context in which generally, almost without exception, the poor, particularly in rural areas are yet to witness the fruits of democratization. We have to single out the poor and rural because for other classes and categories of populations, the situation has been different. On the basis of this, the leadership in Sub-Saharan Africa is always recommitting and rededicating itself to poverty reduction while lamenting that in some countries poverty is even getting worse and fueling the AIDS scourge. One may ask whether this is because democracy has failed to deliver development or whether it shows that there are no linkages between the two. Was ever going to deliver development anyway? These are questions we should ask about our countries. If we agree that democracy offers a far bigger chance that there will be a fit between the policies formulated the wishes and aspirations of the people, then what is the problem? Why are we not making inroads in fighting poverty? Why is it that in virtually all our countries, inequality is said to be increasing and the numbers of the poor increasing as well? Is democracy failing to deliver? What kind of democracy door countries have? How good is it in reflecting the wishes and aspirations of the people? The author does not have answers to these questions. What I know for sure is that maybe we should alter the focus of policy to focus on wealth creation at community level. What I know and have observed as an African is that the indefinite wait for foreign investors who are coming to create jobs and take our people out of poverty may be an allusive dream. We should work with rural people not just to create the social infrastructure which is so much needed, but to try to address poverty at the very basic level of a household and community. Our communities have a far greater potential for leading in their own development if supported. We have focused too much on the national bigger issues and forgotten the very foundation of community and family. If we don t recommit ourselves to a mindset change on our part so that people can have something to eat, we will end up with a situation where - 9 -

10 poverty is providing an enabling environment for our democratic institutions to collapse. Democracy will be sustained only if people are fed and feel secure and able to identify with the future promised by the leadership. Let us appreciate that Africa s development path will not follow that of the industrialized west. It has to be different because circumstances are different. Hence there is need for a rethink of focus and direction so that we do not put all our emphasis on national interventions and totally ignore the communities and villages. It is now no known that the very national big projects (which are rare to come by) do not absorb all people. Those who leave rural areas just swell the ranks of the unemployed in urban areas, later worsening crime, and posing a domestic security threat. All this is possible, and it has started to happen in some of the countries. Only with us doing the above, will a vote mean something to poor people. Otherwise we run the risk of investing in policies and tendencies that can destroy democracy in some of the countries. Thanks! Sources

11 Bardhan P. (1991) Democracy and Development: A Complex Relationship, University of California at Berkeley. Cardoso Fernanda (1995) Democracy and Development. Address delivered on the occasion of is visit to ECLAC headquarters, Chile March Compos, N.(1994) Why Does Democracy Foster economic Development: An assessment of the Empirical Literature, unpublished, USC, Los Angeles. Elster J, (1994) The Impact of Constitutions on Economic Performance, Proceedings of the World bank Annual Conference on Development Economics. Escobar, Arturo (1995) Encountering Development; the making and unmaking of the Third World. Prinston University Press Frank Andre Gunder (1967) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil, New York. Monthly Review Press. Huntington, Samuel. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven; Yale University Press Lewis Arthur W, (1955), The Theory of Economic Growth; Allen and Unnwin, London Little D. (undated) Democracy and Development, University of Michigan NEPAD (The New Partnership for Africa s Development), October 2001 Olson M, ( 1993) Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development, American Political Science Review, Przworski, Adam (1991) Democracy and the Market; Political and economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, Studies in rationality and Social change. Cambridge University Press Rood, Steven unpublished, Decentralization, Democracy and Development Rostow, W.W. (1960) The Stages of economic Growth, a non Communist manifesto, Cambridge University Press, England

12 Rodrick, D. (1997) Has Globalization gone too far? Institute of International Economics, Washington Sen, K.A. (1983) Development: Which Way Now? Economic Journal, December 1983 Sirowy, Larry and Alex Inkeles (1990) The effects of Democracy on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Review of Comparative International development 25 (1) Taylor Ian (2005) NEPAD: Towards Africa s Development or Another False Start? Lynne Reiner, London USAID (undated) Democracy and Governance UN Millennium Project 2005, Investing in Development: A practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, New York World Bank, World Development Report, 1989,1990, 2001,