Someone I know and love very much told me that her friend had said to her 'expecting African nations to copy western democracy right now is like giving them a complete set of instruments and expecting an instant symphonic performance'. First I will explain why this is right, second I will explain why we should not be too pragmatic in prescriptions we draw from this.
If we impose a democratic process on a country it does not necessarily have to lead to ethnic cleansing, popular uprising, general lawlessness and anarchy like it did in Iraq. We could see a genuine demoncratic process take route in a developing country. This is of course at a cursory glance, superior to a dictatorship. But in practical terms there are no real differences. Minus the dissidents among a marginal and tiny middle class who will no longer need to be silenced the result is really not worth the effort.
A typical democracy has a large, vocal and significant group of voters who are well informed about the general policies of their government and the alternatives that are on offer. This group is known in English as 'Civil Society', they comprise everything from newspapers, universities and other such lofty, authoritative institutions all the way down to neighbourhood watch, and other local groups that interact with government and shape policy. These groups cannot be manufactured in a vacuum. They usually arise when three crucial ingredients are present: social peace, leisure time and education.
Let me provide a not to subtle analysis on Africa with these three factors in mind. Most of Africa lacks one of these ingredients, with the possible exception of South Africa, Egypt, and Libya. But in the latter two cases they are instead benighted by kleptocratic dictatorships. It must be said though that Egypt does have some potential as a democracy, it does have a very active civil society after all if the Muslim Brotherhood's moderate wing is anything to go by and the kind of writers, intellectuals and professionals who come from Egypt. Unfortunately thanks to the conservative policies of the State Department there is as yet no change toward democracy in sight in Egypt. Maybe in the next 20 years there will be some changes. After all the current President Hosni Mubarek (who has a rather catchy name, although I don't think I spelt it right) doesn't have long for this world. Anyway digress.
Social peace is obviously a ubiquitously missing ingredient is it not? A few examples spring to mind, the election catastrophes in Zimbabwe and Kenya; the continued unrest in Sudan (or as it should be known 'Genocide'); the raging civil war in the Congo, and Somalia; the occupation of West Sahara. I don't claim to be an expert on conflicts on the African continent so forgive my woefully incomplete list of countries. Nonetheless even outside of these we have places with notably fragile social peace, Angola (think of the African Cup of Nations), and Sierra Leon (a civil war not long since past) immediately spring to mind. The continued problems with militancy in the oil producing areas of Nigeria also spring to mind.
The reasons why social peace are crucial to a functioning civil society are simple. Basically you need a peaceful environment in which the state and the citizenry can interact and shape government policy in between elections. At election time of course you need a peaceful environment to allow for reasoned debate, and a free and fair election process. Outside of that, without a socially peaceful environment other hallmarks of a functioning civil society such as moral debate, critical self-reflection on the identity and goals of the body politic etc. become of course near impossible. Dissent from the opinion of those who have the means and desire to use violence would of course be dangerous without social peace, so a fully functioning civil society would be impossible no?
Next is less obvious. Leisure time; it might not be something you think of immediately. I am not the first to say this, I know that George Orwell definitely said this. I am sure many other self-aware intellectuals must have realised that their ability to have such 'intellectually sophisticated' thoughts sprung at least in part from their having such vast pools of time in which to mull over that which should be committed to paper/propagated amongst the masses, and that which best be committed to the flames. Even moving beyond this rather intangible and for the broad mass of people tangential at best example even basic processes of a civil society like reasoned political debate through newspapers, neighbourhood meetings etc. require a lot of time. There needs to be a rich pool of talent that shapes the political agenda, and not only that, there needs to be a populous that has the time away from fighting for survival, ie. food subsistence (not an insignificant issue for many on the African continent) who have the energy to consider complex political equations. Africa has no problem with talent. When Africans have the same chances as Europeans the results can be the same, murderous generals (and brave ones too) and wonderful writers (I'm sure there are some who use too many kitsch clichés too).
Last and I suppose least is education. I say least because really, if you are hungry and there are guns being fired, how to solve a quadratic equation doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue. Nonetheless whilst this is very much the case we should not ignore the fact that if a society is well educated it is usually more likely to develop quicker, and concurrently there will be more people who have a proper understanding about the systems around them that shape their lives. I am not saying that a farmer struggling for survival doesn't know how the state is trying to steal from him and deceive him, I am just saying that a reporter who works for a national newspaper with contacts abroad maybe better able to manipulate the system into being less corrupt. For obvious reasons, a continent struggling to feed its people, with violence as a norm, education has taken a back seat.
If we impose democracy on an African state that does not have these three crucial ingredients, the procedure of democracy may function very well, but the procedure will be empty. It will not yield a transparent western state, subject to judicial review, citizen's activism and to the ultimate threat of the ballot box. Rather, the most likely outcome will be the appearance of a democratic process, marred either by fraud, violence, or just rampant corruption between elections.
Its funny but we as westerners are unwilling and unknowing collaborators in this whole sorry state of affairs. If you have a bank account you are party to investments in companies that do business with highly corrupt, labour exploiting dictatorships that help prolong much of the suffering that is still occurring on the African continent. I know its not something that you (and also I) want to think about, its horrible. This psychopathic disconnection between our actions and their consequences in this 'globalised' world we live in is not a positive development, but it should not be ignored. When the university I am currently attending preaches the virtues of 'globalisation' I think of that and feel disgusted by the kitschness of their empty platitudes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Have you brought up your points about globalisation w/ your lecturers?
No, my classes do not relate to that. What makes you ask?
I'm curious as to what sort of retort you would get.
My lecturers are a tad more sanguine than the university's official propaganda about 'top 10 and to the world' (the official slogan). My lecturers I am sure would say very much what my mentor says, 'it cannot be helped it seems'. I cannot help but agree, mainly because I am a powerless, part-time blogger who does not have the power to solve such institutional, social and geo-politically deep rooted problems. What about you? What do you think of my thesis? I cannot believe how I wrote the whole thing, read it back, and then realised I had not said anything that could be offensive to anyone except a few corrupt dictators...
Right, again, but unlike your most recent post, I don't know whether you're arguing or explaining.
To boot, the civil society fosters democracy thing was expanded on (in fact, practically taken to a new level) by one barrington moore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrington_Moore,_Jr.#Social_Origins_of_Dictatorship_and_Democracy
but anyway, you're talking about how civil society is formed, and it really seems to me that you're describing symptoms, not causes, of civil society.
The reason we (and by that i mean we) want to democracy to find a stronghold in africa is that we want africans to have peace, leisure, and education. we do not expect these to be realized before democracy is institutionalized.
we somehow, inevitably, brings us to capitalism. you saw this coming, dear reader; we want to incentivize democracy.
A really interesting idea is brought forwards by one Hernando de soto. first, a question: why does capital function so well in the developed world, but not as well in the developing?
it turns out these are the properties of capital that is formally represented in a legal system; it is represented as a concept with both a physical and metaphysical properties. only the latter is represented in the developing world:
1. a fixed economic potential of an asset
2. information integrated into system
3. ownership of a stake in the system
4. asset transferability
5. transaction protection
now, you want a democratic institution, because you can implement these properties of capital. you effective maximize the use of your property by assigning the label 'capital' to it.
for instance, de soto estimates that 9.3 trillion dollars worth of land and housing assets are not formally represented in the developing world.
i.e. their owners cannot use them for financing, because they are illegal. they are not recognized by their respective government. think rio de janeiro slums.
Now, the key here is institutions. they make you or break you. the most famous example (and a one that you can relate to) is korea. economic historians love korea.
korea provides an example of two states where two states with identical culture, past, and resources diverged greatly in such a short amount of time. with one difference. institutions.
So essentially (and im doing away with much economics jargon here) institutions are responsible for providing an incentive structure in a economy.
this structure determines if it is more economically viable for you to steal or produce. to participate or oppose.
i'd love to go into detail about how to fix african institutions, but i feel its too general to talk about 'africa' in that sense.
but back to the capital property list, a very important property is no.3 providing a stake in the system.
that is extremely important when talking about democracy. if you want people to participate, then they will have to learn that they have something to loose if they do not.
presently, it is pretty clear that it doesnt matter if you participate or not. you do not have a stake in the system, you can do fine with trying to participate in your village/local community because that you do have a stake in. and it is that that has to change.
Omar, you have missed the forrest for the trees. You don't have a democracy without development. The institutions which you so rightly identify as being present and facilitiating the development of 'developing Korea' did not arise in a democracy but rather a military dictatorship under the quasi-benevolent nationalist and strong-arming General Park Jong Hee (who you can tell I have a lot of time for and want desparately to read about in great detail in Korean, where the real information is trapped).
The three symptoms I described in Africa are actually not directly related to the development. Democracy is largely speaking irrevivant to economic growth, and development. Once you have a developed country, or at least a country with a large set of people who can participate politically, as I described, then you have a civil society and then democracy is possible.
South Korea developed all of this under a dictatorship, not under a democracy. Rather than democracy leading to civil society I believe it to be the contrary.
no no no, this is what i meant (im well aware of south korea's road to development)
institutions->development->democracy->peace, leisure time, education
but also, it is still true that democratic behaviour needs to be incentivized. e.g. in england you vote because you do have something to loose, if you are a student, you vote labour, because you dont want to pay higher tuition et cetera...
"Democracy is largely speaking irrevivant to economic growth, and development. Once you have a developed country, or at least a country with a large set of people who can participate politically, as I described, then you have a civil society and then democracy is possible."
where has democracy functioned well without proper economic development?
ok so typo
"now, you want a democratic institution, because you can implement these properties of capital."
i meant a functional institution, you can see the democratic doesnt make any sense in context. but the point still stands, and dont say india!
No you missed my point. My three original points which you put down as symptoms of a mature democracy are not. Social peace results from a lack of social disorder centred on race/ethnic/religious conflict and/or the arbitrary use of force by the state or other institutional/group actors. That is not the product of democracy but rather a cause of it.
Second, leisure time is the product of development not of democracy.
Third, education at a mass level is the product of benevolent and enlightened governance. China is a good example of this, the level of school enrollment is not the product of Chinese democracy but of its government's pursuit of development (and not just economic).
i suppose they can exist individually, but the set of three (as you defined civil society) is pretty rare without a functioning democracy.
does china have social cohesion?
africans have plenty of leisure time do they not?
education standards are pretty high in cuba are they not?
where is civil society in these countries?
Chinese civil society is not exactly absent but it is of course not fully there yet. For good reason, the lack of social cohesion. Thus institutional arranges reflect this as you mention. Cohesion is enforced top-down by an authoritarian nationalist system.
I wouldn't call starving leisure time, if there is a lack of starvation then of course this is leisure time. But a lack of education is then the major impediment as is the ubiquity of arbitrary force.
Like you say educational standards in Cuba are high. The institutional situation seems to be at fault to an extent, but you could hardly accuse the average Cuban of an excess of leisure time, the economy isn't exactly sound.
Post a Comment