ps335 seminar paper.doc
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 ps335 Seminar Paper.doc
1/6
UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
PS 345: DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS
PRESENTATION PAPER
COURSE INSTRUCTOR: DR. MOGELLA, MR. DAMIAN
NAME REG. NUMBER COURSE
KISHIMBA, MARY N. 2009-04-05570 BA. PSPA
QUESTION 6:
Democracy and development are two incompatible states of affairs. Their relationship is
like the egg-chicken relationship. With reference to Carbone, G (2009), The Consequences
of Democratization and Sorensen, G (1998), Domestic Consequences of Democratization
(Chpt3), discuss this statement showing which of the two should be given top priority by
African countries.
-
7/28/2019 ps335 Seminar Paper.doc
2/6
Introduction
We do not agree with the statement that democracy and development are two incompatible
states of affairs. We view democracy and development as being not only compatible but also
correlational and interdependent. More often than not development precedes and sets the stage
for democracy. It is also our view that development should be given top priority by African
countries.
Sorensen (1993) defines democracy as a form of government in which the people rule
(Sorensen, 1993). The term democracy comes from the combination of two Greek words, demos
meaning people and kratos meaning rule.
Democracy and Development
Several scholars have debated about the relationship between democracy and development.
Two perspectives exist; those that agree that there is a correlation and compatibility between
democracy and development and those who reject the idea of any correlation between democracy
and development.
Lipset(1959) belongs to the first group, that is those who believe that there is a correlation
between democracy and development. He argues that greater economic prosperity in a state often
brings about democracy. He compares democracies and unstable dictatorships with unstable
dictatorships in Latin America and concluded that there is a positive correlation between
democracy and development (Stephens & Stephens 2008, 13). Cutright (1963) argues that
increasing literacy and other related forms of social change draw the peoples interest towards
political participation, thus generating pressure to democratize (Stephens & Stephens 2008, 14).
Scholars like Schweinitz (1964) and Weber (1922) argue against the claim of any
compatibility between democracy and development. Schweinitz claims that the democracy
which emerged in the 19th century did so due to a historically unique set of factors which cannot
be recreated or repeated. He asserts that, the Euro- American route of democracy is closed
Other means now need to be devised for building new democratic states (Stephens & Stephens
2000, 20).
Weber also argues along the same vein. He claims that to link the development of capitalism
to democracy is completely ridiculous and that democracy and early capitalism were at odds
with each other (Stephens & Stephens 2000, 20). The conditions that allowed the disciplines of
consumption, of work, of public order that are necessary for economic development exist in
contemporary states and yet a strong democracy has not been established in most.
2
-
7/28/2019 ps335 Seminar Paper.doc
3/6
Sorensen (1993) provides several arguments for both perspectives. On one hand he argues that
growth (which is his definition for economic development) requires surplus which can only be
gained by reducing consumption, something which a democratic regime is unable to pursue. This
is because the consumers are also the voters and they will lash out at the politicians who
implement the consumption reduction policy at the ballot box in the next elections, meaning that
there cannot be a compatibility between democracy and development (Sorensen 1993, 63).
In the political context democracy tends to increase the pressure on weak institutions in such a
way as to prevent economic growth. For example, those countries whose national businesses are
unable to successfully compete in the international markets suffer when aspects of democracy
such as trade liberalisation are introduced. The national economy suffers and levels of
unemployment rise, increasing the pressure on already fragile institutions (Sorensen 1993).
Democracy makes concerted state action in the economy more difficult- the state is weak. It is
limited in what can be done to promote economic growth and welfare. Tha state lacks the power
to tackle the economic issues in the country.
On the other hand, Sorensen defends the idea of a compatibility between democracy and
development and democrarcy playing a role in promoting economic development. First he argues
that democratic investment in basic human needs is good for economic growth. Since the state
will prioritize raising the living standards of the people, overall economic growth will be a target
that the state pursues.
Second, democracy provides a stable political environment and the basis for economic
pluralism. The stability brought about by a democratic regime allows different business types to
flourish within the state thus fueling economic growth. Also, the competitive nature of economic
pluralism along with the diversity of competition provides an added boost for economic growth
and welfare in a democratic state.
Third, democracy means legitimacy; a strong state is often a democratic state. Dahl describes
legitimacy as a reservoir; so long as the water is at a given level, legitimacy is maintained. Since
the people have legitimized the state, it has room to implement policies to foster economic
development whereas if it had not been legitimate the power to implement such policies would
have been questioned by the people at every turn, thus impeding development.
Carbone (2009) highlights the issue that although democracy has its advantages, such as
enhancing nation-building, favouring economic development, promoting increased welfare and
facilitating economic reforms, it also has it problems, such as causing war, social inequality, and
economic stagnation. Democracy may not always result in development. In fact, the opposite
may happen, including levels of poverty and inequality rising (Carbone 2009, 123).
3
-
7/28/2019 ps335 Seminar Paper.doc
4/6
As to which of the two between democracy and development should be given priority by
African countries, we feel that development should be given priority for several reasons. African
countries need development since democracy requires a certain level of economic affluence for
its development. The socio-economic conditions set by economic affluence set the stage for
democracy and without it there can be little chance of a sustainable democracy being established.
Also, democracy can impede economic development due to democratic institutions not being
where they are needed. The lack of free and fair elections in a state can result in electoral
violence as it did in Kenya in 2008 and damage a countrys economic growth as well as its
reputation in the international arena. Development would lead to democracy since the necessary
conditions for a strong democracy to develop would exist.
Democracy in Africa came about as a precondition to getting aid from Western states. Ake
(2000) points out that democracy in Africa has been approached rather obliquely from the need
for economic and political incorporation and the demand for a second independence form a
political class whose governance performance has been generally poor and, in some cases,
disastrous (Ake 2000, 88). Democracy was treated as a way to foster development rather than as
an extension of the development process. The Euro- American democracy was preceded by
(economic) development, so Africa needs to pursue development before it can truly democratize.
Most cases of African democracies have been unsuccessful because the institutions of democracy
are not as deeply imbedded as they should. In a sense these institutions are too premature to
nurture a sustainable democracy.
Furthermore, African countries have invested too much in democracy at the cost of
development. Some think that a large number of political parties is equal to development. A state
like the USA has two political parties and yet it is considered to be the most democratic country
in the world. Socrates predicted that even Democracy ruins itself by excess...of Democracy
(Durant, Will 1910). A country needs to be united to develop, and the establishment of a large
number of political parties serves only to balkanize the people under the labels of who they
support. If a state has differing and contending development agendas, there can only be strife
rather than consensus on policies. Tanzania currently has about 13 political parties and the
heated debates in Parliament are an indication of the push and pull that is going on in the state.
Yet the development policies adopted are drafted by institutions like the World Bank. If the time
and energy used in these political confrontations was directed towards developing Tanzania, the
country would have made large strides towards developing.
4
-
7/28/2019 ps335 Seminar Paper.doc
5/6
Conclusion
Democracy and development are two compatible states of affairs where development usually
precedes democracy, and in some cases this is a requirement. Development should be given top
priority since democracy needs economic affluence, among other things, to develop as well as
the tendency of democracy to impede economic growth and welfare by causing wars, social
inequality and economic stagnation.
5
-
7/28/2019 ps335 Seminar Paper.doc
6/6
REFERENCES
Ake, C (2000) The Feasibility of Democracy in Africa, Ch 3.
Carbone, G (2009) The Consequences of Democratization, Journal of Democracy, Volume 20.
Durant, Will, (1910)Philosophy and the Social Problem, New York: Macmillan.
Sorensen, G (1993) The Domestic Consequences of Democratization: Processes in a Changing
World, Ch. 2-3,Westview Press, Bouldner, San Francisco, Oxford.
Stephens, E. H & Stephens J. D (2008) Capitalist Development and Democracy: The
Controversy.
6