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 KISHIMBA, MARY N. REG. NUMBER 2009-04-05570 COURSE 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.