A Study of Ghana and Botswana

DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA:

A Study of Ghana and Botswana

Abstract

There have been a lot of debates on how democracy and development, affect each other. Some said democracy works better in a developed society, and therefore development has to come first before democracy is introduced. Others have argued that for accelerated development to take place there would be the need for democratic government where everyone will contribute or participate in formulating ideas and strategies for the development of a nation; and where political leaders and other public office holders can be held accountable for their actions.

Introduction

On the verge of independence, African countries were given constitutions and democratic political system for the governance of their countries. Although many of the then African leaders changed the political system later to one-party states, with the reason that democracy was not good for Africa, their dreams of socio-economic development were neither realized in the one-party states. Almost all African countries have now changed their political systems back to democracy, but it is not working well the way it does in the developed countries and this has led to many debates that democracy is not the best political system for developing countries, like Africa’s.

The aim of this paper was to study the interrelationship between democracy and development in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Democracy and Development

There have been a lot of debates on how these two concepts, democracy and development, affect each other. Some said democracy works better in a developed society, and therefore development has to come first before democracy is introduced. Others have argued that for accelerated development to take place there would be the need for democratic government where everyone will contribute or participate in formulating ideas and strategies for the development of a nation; and where political leaders and other public office holders can be held accountable for their actions. According to Rukudzo Murapa (2001), in a paper delivered at the Indaba 2001, a meeting organized by the Zimbabwe International Book Fair Trust on “Changing Lives: Promoting a Reading Culture in Africa” “Democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth. Thus democracy and development are positively linked. The proliferation of democracy leads to development. There is no universally convincing evidence that authoritarian government and the suppression of political and civil rights are really beneficial to development”.

However, Tekeste Negash (2000/333-349) has also argued that civil society, which is a prerequisite for democratic development, has little chance of flourishing in an environment of extreme poverty, like Africa. According to John J. Quinn (2003/585), civil society theory holds that there are societal preconditions, or requirements, for democracy or transitions to democracy to take hold. Specifically concerning democratization in Africa, according to him, many argue that those countries that have a strong civil society will be better positioned to become more democratic. Civil society, he said, includes a general body of private voluntary associations (e.g., student group, chamber of commerce, labour unions, women’s groups, church groups, etc.) that do not derive power or legitimacy from the state. It is believed that where civil society is strong, the country is more likely to be successful at democracy since civil society energizes resistance to tyrannical regimes. However, the most basic constraint on the strengthening of democratic regimes in Africa, some scholars have argued, is underdevelopment itself. The positive association between development and democracy is apparent to even the most casual observer, and scholars have attempted to verify this linkage between the two variables since the 1950s. As noted, most scholars have typically focused on the intervening variable that follow from underdevelopment and impede democratization, including illiteracy, ethnic strife, fragmented civil society and political culture (Graybill & Thompson, 1998). According to John F. Clark (1998), for democracy to work in the new Africa regimes, it will unfortunately have to be limited in a number of ways. In terms of social welfare, for instance, African state should probably recognize the limits of their capacities.

Veen, Roel van der (2004/84), quoted Robert Dahl as expanding the concept of democracy in the 1970s by introducing the concept of polyarchy, which encompasses not only political competition and participation, but also a considerable number of individual freedoms (freedom of speech, the press, assembly and so on) and makes democracy conditional on pluralism in society. According to Dahl, political competition and participation only have meaning if human rights are also observed. This means that there cannot be a proper democratic system without human rights. However, I. G. Shivji (1989) has argued that the human rights and the imported constitutions are Eurocentric, and need to have some Afrocentric perspective for a cross-cultural understanding. Western human rights conceptions are based on individualism (or autonomous individual) while Africans are not. Africans live in groups- communalism.

Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”. This falls in line with the definition of development given by Emmanuel Nnadozie (2003/30-31). He described development in Africa as a multi-dimensional process involving an increase in income, improvement in the quality of life of Africans and transformation in the structure of African economies, social structures and popular attitudes. He explained that improvement in the quality of life includes fulfillment of basic needs and improvement in human welfare, an expansion of and improvement in access to food, clothing, housing, health, education services, safe environment and richer cultural life. Which means, to me, that the provision of the needs of the citizens of a society is part of the developmental process.

Chris Brink (2005) stated that it is a requirement of the government to supply the needs of the people, and the duty of the individuals to claim or receive them. Chris Brink (2005) also stressed that natural rights are rights inherent in an individual, not in consequence of any particular merit or deficiency, but simply by virtue of being a person. He described a second category of rights ascribed to individuals, namely the right to receive something. This might be the right to education, health services, social security, or the protection of the law – it is, at any rate, some benefit or safeguard that must be provided, typically by the state. Natural rights are thought of as something absolute- you should enjoy those rights no matter what. By the descriptions given, it means that poverty is an abuse of human rights under conditions where a country have enough resources to meet the needs of its citizens, but political leaders fail to provide those needs. As described by Chris Brink (2005), the citizens of a nation have the right to demand their needs from their leaders. My question is: How can the citizens of a non-democratic society make their voices heard in a situation where their needs are not being provided?

When the former president of Ghana, Jerry John Rawlings, took over power by the gun he stated that he did it because the needs of the people were not being provided. He said: “I don't know any law and I don't understand economics, but I know it when my stomach is empty”. When he took over power he was doing similar things the previous government was doing, and said that democracy was not good for Ghana’s development. Nobody could challenge him. Anyone who attempted to do so was imprisoned without trial. Many were killed and some had to flee the country for their lives. There was massive corruption in the country. It was when the Soviet Union collapsed in1984 that he turned to Western donors, the World Bank and the International Monitory Fund ; and was asked to change the political system to democracy. Now Ghana is back on its feet.

My argument is that, it would be difficult for African countries to develop without a proper democratic system in place. African private investors do not have the means nor the experience to set up independent businesses (Veen, 2004/58); and foreigners do not invest in a country where there is political instability, fear, and where the government control prices. In a proper democratic system leaders are elected in free and fair elections, the rights of individuals are respected and minority groups are included in policy formulations. Many have argued that Botswana’s economy has been one of the best in Africa because of political stability (Jefferis and Kenewendo, 2010). They have had a genuine functioning liberal democratic system since independence; and there has not been any civil war or something of that sort during regime transitions (Samatar, 1999/4). They have one of the best banking systems in Africa. Around 1999, it was estimated that 45% of all business- and mainly the large scale businesses- in Botswana were owned by foreigners (Samatar, 1999/167); they have created jobs for the people and pay taxes, and I do not think those business people would have invested their money in that country if they have political instability. Lynn Graybill (1998) stated that political instability and turbulence is often an obstacle to development. Countries that experience a succession of internal revolts and coups d’état are unlikely to successfully harness their national resources for nation-building. Some observers, she continued, will insist that countries that fail to achieve political development are high-risk choice for economic development. Political development is doubtful when corrupt and unstable regimes remain in power. In such cases, the creation of more stable regimes becomes a precondition to economic development. If democracy is working well in Botswana, I do not see why it should fail in other African countries.

Authoritarian Regimes

Traditional African Political Systems: Authoritarian regime, to me, is not the best form of government since it does not foster participatory government. The pre-colonial traditional political system was anti-human right since they were non-democratic. As said by Max Weber (1947) “A traditional ruler derived his title to authority from the sanctity of customs, which is located in a family to which a person must belong in order to qualify for that role.” This means that anyone born outside a particular family in an African society cannot lead or take part in the traditional government of his or her society. This violates the article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

These, traditional political systems, also did not have any documented constitutions and allowed many traditional practices that were harmful to humanity- female genital mutilation, land ownership rights, men as heads of their families are but few (Packer, 2002). One can trace both pro-democratic and authoritarian, even tyrannical, strains in the political forms of pre-colonial Africa (Graybill & Thompson, 1998).

One-Party States: Another authoritarian political system is that of one-party state. One-party state is a political system where a single party is accorded a legal or de facto monopoly of formal political activity. This may be enforced under the constitution, or it may be a consequence of denying rival parties access to the electorate, or of a failure to consult the electorate at all. Alternatively, the electorate may be selectively defined, or consultation will be otherwise manipulated, so as to ensure the return of the governing party. Until recently one-party states came under two main categories: the so-called totalitarian states, mostly but not exclusively communist and East European; and numerous Third World states where authoritarian regimes have long had recourse to a single party to control administration, mobilize support, and supervise distribution of the available patronage (McLean & McMillan, 2003). Some few examples of one-party states formed in Africa were the Worker's Party of Ethiopia (1984-1991), the Mozambique Liberation Front (1975-1990), and the Convention People's Party of Ghana (1964-1969).

As stated in the introduction of this paper, one-party states have failed to produce socio-economic progress. Veen (2004/31) argued that Ghana, like many other African countries, experienced several years of relative prosperity after independence. However, the 1960s saw a rapid political and economic decline. This was the time when Kwame Nkrumah introduced his one-party state. It was more dictatorial; there was no press freedom, and political opponents and strike leaders were arrested and imprisoned. The one-party political system adopted by many African countries at independence, as argued by John J. Quinn (2003/328), created several political societies that were to become major obstacles to economic growth and development. In addition that the one-party political system has failed to provide Africans with the right structure for peaceful coexistence and genuine development, it has not produced any significant improvements in the living conditions of the majority of the people. It, however, enhanced the ability of ruling elite to engage in corrupt enrichments John J. Quinn (2003/328).

Military Regimes: Military regimes, where political leaders come into power through coups d’état are the worst of all political systems. When Rawlings took power in Ghana through the gun, he ruled without taking notice of national laws or even the constitution. He dealt harshly with his political opponents, not eschewing executions (Veen, 2004/94). Many human rights were violated. There was no press freedom; and he did worse things than the one he overthrew, and no proper development took place during that military regime. It was when his socialist ideas and the Soviet Union failed that he turned to Western donors for help. There has never been any instance in Africa that a military regime has worked.

In their 2008 presidential election campaign, we heard a lot of insults from both the Republicans and the Democrats of the United States of America; and this happens everywhere in the world, but we do not normally hear of killings, incarcerations and torturing of opposition party members and journalists, and civil wars the way they happen in Africa. Democracy, as argued by Lars Ryden (2007/102), is certainly a form of government with many weak points, but citing the Norwegian peace researcher, Petter Gleditsch – ‘there is no other game in town’. It is, I believe, the best form of government we have at the moment and I believe it should be able to work in any part of the world no matter the economic situation. It is slowly gaining grounds in Africa and I believe very soon all Africans will come to a better understanding of it.

Conclusion

There have been many arguments that democracy cannot work in Africa for many reasons. Some of these are that Africa is poor and underdeveloped and that democracy, and for that matter civil society have little chance of flourishing in underdeveloped countries or countries with extreme poverty. This means that development must be achieved before democracy is introduced. The high rate of corruption and vote buying during elections in almost all African countries, I believe, support this argument. Another reason is that the constitutions of African states and the human rights are of Western cultures. Africans have different cultures and it will be very difficult for these laws to work well in African societies.

However, others have also argued, and I agree with them, that it is through a proper democratic system that a country can be developed. It is through a participatory government, where citizens and minority groups are given a say in decision making that accelerated development can be achieved. A very good example indicating that democracy can work in Africa is Botswana. Politics is about conflicts, and this happens everywhere, but it must just be conflicts of ideas- as we may all, sometimes, have different opinions on certain issues- and not physical wars as happen in most African countries. Culture is dynamic, not static; and so if it is through democracy that African countries can develop, I do not see why Africans should stick to the aspects of the culture that hinders proper democratic development. The rights of the people do not have to be abused and violated just because majority of them are illiterates and poor.

References

An-Na’im, Abdullahi A (ed.), (2002).

Cultural Transformation and Human Rights in Africa. Zed Books, London.

Brink, Chris (2005)

On Minorities

Clark, John F. (1998)

The Constraints on Democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case for Limited

Democracy, In: Graybill, L. & Thompson, k. W. (eds.) Africa’s Second Wave of

Freedom: Development, Democracy and Rights. University Press of America, Lanham, Md.

Graybill, L. & Thompson, K. W. (eds.) (1998).

Africa’s Second Wave of Freedom: Development, Democracy and Rights. University

Press of America, Lanham, Md.

Jefferis, Keith and Kenewendo, Bogolo (2010-11)

Botswana Financial Sector Overview

Lars, Ryden (2007:31)

An Agenda for Global Responsibility and CitizenshipTiana, In: Kaivola and Monica-

Paaso (eds), Education for Global Responsibility- Finnish

Perspective, Publications of the Ministry of Education, Finland

McLean, Iain and McMillan, Alistair (2003).

One-party states,” Oxford Dictionary of Politics”, http://www.answers.com/topic/one-

party- states#ixzz1EVgRWYYM

Nnadozie, Emmanuel (2003).

Definition and Measurement of Growth and Development, in: Nnadozie, Emmanuel

(ed.), African Economic Development Amsterdam Boston: Academic Press

Packer, A. A. (2002)

Using human rights to change tradition: traditional practices harmful

to women's reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa. Intersentia, Antwerpen.

Quinn, John J. (ed.) (2003)

Democracy and Development, in: African Economic

Development, Nnadozie, Emmanuel (ed.), Amsterdam Boston:

Academic Press

2011-02-18

Rawlings: The Legend, “BBC News: World: Africa”,

http:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Africa/1050310.stm

Rukudzo, Murapa (2001)

Is Literacy a Prerequisite to Democracy and Development, in: Changing

Live- Promoting a Reading Culture in Africa, Zimbabwe International Book Fair Trust,

Zimbabwe

Samatar, Abdi Ismail (1999)

An African Miracle. State and Class Leadership and Colonial

Legacy in Botswana Development. Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann

Shivji, I. G. (1989)

The Concept of Human Rights in Africa. Codresia, Dakar.

Tekeste Negash (2000)

“The Landscape of African Constitutions: Some Concluding

Remarks”, in Piergigli, V. och Irma Taddia, eds. International Conference on African

Constitutions. Turin, Italy

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Veen, Roel van der (2004)

What Went Wrong with Africa? A Contemporary History.

Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.

Weber, Max (1947)

The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation

(Translated by Parson and Henderson), London: Hodge