Choosing The Lesser of Two Evils

Democracy. Freedom of the people for the people. Rule by popular/majority vote. This week the first thing we did in  class was write on a piece of paper what we thought of democracy. I wrote "the system where you choose the lesser of two evils". That is sincerely what I think democracy is. When one looks at modern politics , especially during an election year, the sentiment that you should choose the lesser of  two evils in regards to candidates is very visible. During debates or media campaigns, contenders can usually be seen saying 'yes I might have done XYZ but at least I didn't do what the other guy did, his mistake was worse than mine so therefore you should vote for me'. This mentality also transcends to how citizens vote. Most of the discourse runs along the lines of "I'm going to vote for that individual because the other guy's policies are worse not because I think he is actually good. People rarely vote for an individual because they think he or she is the best for their country, state or city.

Along with our individual opinions on democracy, there was also a general discussion about sequencing democracy based on Carothers' article "How Democracies Emerge: The Sequencing Fallacy". In this paper Carother seeks to convince the reader that sequencing is not necessary and that its often just a tactic to delay the transition of a country into democracy, either by the autocrat or external powers. Though he makes some good points in regards to rule of law and elections as well as his opinion on the idea that rule of law needs to be established prior to democracy is wrong, the overall paper is not that convincing in regards to sequencing being flawed. He bases his belief that rule of law is not necessarily a prerequisite on his understanding that dictators/monarchs are most likely not going to promote the establishment rule of law because it could serve to undermine their authority. Yet, he contradicts himself. He makes it seem as if only autocracies are incapable of establishing rule of law but then later says that democracies also struggle to build rule of law. This then leads me to wonder, so if democracies aren't good at it and autocracies aren't good at it, why should one aim for democracy?

As an alternative to sequencing, Carothers introduces gradualism. Gradualism though does not seem to be any better than sequencing. With gradualism, there is no need to wait for rule of law to be established prior to democracy. As long as the citizens of the country are calling for democracy, the transition should begin to occur. The aspects of a state that need to be established for gradualism to work, according to Cartohers, are economic development, the creation of wealth and the crave of democracy by citizens. Unfortunately though, these aspects are not easy to acquire, especially in an autocratic state that is poor, underdeveloped and repressive. These aspects may actually take more time to put in place than those called for by sequencing.

In Tolstrup's "When Can External Actors Influence Democratization? Leverages, Linkages and Gatekepper Elites", he discusses the impacts that elites or 'big men' have on the democratization process. As mentioned in my last post, a key factor in reforming a country, is making sure that the elites are on board. This same notion is expressed in Tolstrup's paper. As seen in recent years in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of how much strong international powers want democracy to happen in a state, regardless of how much money that is poured in, if the will of people are not in it, democracy will not succeed. You can have elections, set up a parliament and any other democratic institution, that still does not mean that democracy will succeed in that state.

Overall, democracy is not something that will just happen and be successful because some international body thinks it will be. The citizens of the state, the elite as well as commoners, need to want the changes that a democracy will bring. The transition from a non-democratic state to democracy, will vary depending on each country because as much as people(Development workers, heads of states, diplomats, academics) like to present a framework for what is needed for a successful democracy, there is not one full proof method.

Sources:

Carothers, T (2007) ‘How Democracies Emerge: The “ Sequencing” Fallacy’, Journal of Democracy, 8(1); pp. 12-27 

Tolstrup, J (2013)’When can External Actors Influence Democratization? Leverage, Linkage and Gatekeeper Elites’, Democratization 20 (4) pp. 716-742

Inclusiveness and Big Men

This week's readings and lecture focused on the role that elites and political settlements play in the development/success of a state. Acemoglu and Robinson's chapter "Understanding Prosperity and Poverty"  began with the classical explanation that poverty and development were not predetermined and has nothing to do with geography or culture. This same sentiment was mentioned in Moore's paper "Political Underdevelopment: What Causes Bad Governance". In both readings, the authors explained how at one point some entities in the global south such as the Aztecs, were more advanced than their Northern counterparts. I personally do not understand why anyone would actually think nations in the southern hemisphere are not as developed simply as a result of their geographical location. Logically it does not make sense and as discussed in the last class session, the case of North Korea v. South Korea proves this to be incorrect.

The rest of the Acemoglu and Robinson chapter focused extensively on the effect that inclusive and extractive institutions had on the development of a state. While I do agree that a state with an inclusive institution and economy has a better chance of being developed, I do not think that being extractive completely rules one out of the development process. The example of China is consistently used in regards to a state that seems to be developed but due to its lack of inclusiveness will eventually cease to grow. I do not agree with this. There is no "right" way to develop and the methods that work in one state might not work in another. Based on the readings and my perception of them, Accemoglu and Robinson as well as Leftwich do not think that it is necessary to replicate the development strategies of one state to another. They are however of the opinion that there are certain correct ways to go about development especially in regards to state building. Personally, as a result of the various cultural practices, informal institutions, and patrimonial style of governance that exist in many developing countries, trying to impose a liberal democracy or inclusive institutions on a state that is not prepared for it or does not want it will not be successful because those values are not embedded in the the culture of the given state. Regardless of how much resources and effort is put into building a state, simply trying to replicate an ideal western state with the intrusion of liberal democracy, such as attempted in Afghanistan, will not work.

The readings though did shed a light on  how the being inclusive versus extractive can affect the overall progress and development of a state.

In regards to the role of elites in development, it is pretty much agreed by many that it is almost impossible to alter the government or any major aspect of the state without the allegiance of the elite. After doing the readings and the discussions in the seminar, I agree as well. Even though the elites of a state are the minority, most likely any sort of reforms that are being implemented will affect them. The determinant of whether or not the elites will support the reforms lies in whether or not it will negatively or positively affect their standing in society. For instance, if an initiative includes a very strong effort to rid corruption, which is something that the elites is heavily involved in, most likely the reform will not succeed as well.

References:

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012) Why Nations Fail: The origin of power, prosperity and poverty, London Profile Books.  Chapter 15: “Understanding Prosperity and Poverty”

Daloz, P. (2003) ‘Big Men, in Sub-Saharan Africa: How Elites Accumulate Positions and Resources’, Comparative Sociology 2 (1) pp. 272-285 [online] available at: UoB E-library

The Underdevelopment of Development

With the immense push for development projects in poor/ developing nations, many organisations and developed countries were of the mindset that after numerous years of work, many of these poor-performing countries would we well off. Unfortunately though, that has not been the case. Many of these nations still suffer from poor governance, inefficient economies and horrible living standards. This has led to many wondering why, despite the immense amount of resources that have been utilized to improve circumstances in these nations, they still under perform. What is it about nations in the 'Global South" that causes them to have such poor institutions? Is it because of their geographic locations? Is it because of their cultures and backwards practices? These are some of the questions and sentiments that people often pose when trying to understand this issue.

There are those who instantly jump towards the problem of culture and claim that  'backwardness' of some of these states is what limits their ability to improve. This mentality goes in line with those who propagate modernization theory. Modernization theory upholds that if societies began to modernize(become like Western nation) in regards to mentality, culture and methods of operation, their overall livelihoods would improve. Modernizing would bring about good governance, effective institutions, a growing economy, etc.

Moore's paper "Political Underdevelopment: What Causes Bad Governance", explains that the cause of the global south's problems stems from the abundance of bad governance which stems from a host of other problems. His main claim is that political underdevelopment of poor questions results from their interactions with rich countries as well as the way in which authority in the south is/was constructed. Alongside this, he mentions that the policies and practices of Northern governments is what helps sustain poor governance. While some might find this surprising and obnoxious, the arguments that Moore presents are quite convincing and accurate especially when related to the context of international aid. Aid agencies have classified bad governance as an obstacle to improved welfare and economic growth and therefore put in place conditions that are related to governance issues in order for a state to receive aid. The problem with this approach is that 1- Some leaders of poor countries are fine with not receiving aid due to the fact that their personal wealth would be more negatively affected if they met the conditions and 2-the conditions are not chosen in the context of the specific country but simply what Western nations believe is good.

Besides poor governance some other reasons behind underdevelopment lies in the way these nations were formed. As a result of colonization, most of these countries have unnatural births, incomplete state formation and a history of external control.

Western/Northern nations also affect the development of poor nations through the manner in which they plunder the resources that these nations have and their mismanagement while extracting these resources. This can be seen in regards to the actions of Shell in Nigeria. While extracting oil in the Ogoni area, Shell completely devastated the area, ruining the soil, contaminating the water and in essence making it uninhabitable. The Ogoni people in the area as a result suffered further poverty. Similar situations can be witnessed in other nations.

Overall, the cause of underdevelopment does not stem from the geographical locality of the nation nor from its culture and nor was it predetermined. Poor development is a result of bad governance, mismanagement and irregular relationships with Western nations.

Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A., 2013. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Croydon: CPI Group (UK).

Moore, M., 2001. Political Underdevelopment: What Causes ‘Bad Governance’. Public Management Review, 3(3), pp. 385-418.