Dear Editor,
In response to Mr. Rudy Vyfhuis’s letter captioned “Can a developing country have democracy and rapid development,” (08.04.04), the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, ask why not?
To be candid, I will concede this is such a broad and deep topic it will take more than one analysis or even one analyst to configure. Pragmatically, however, while democracy is supposed to lead to development, this twin cardinal concept really is a process that actually requires bold visionary planning, careful management and a rewards-based incentive plan for the people’s participation. However, history has shown that not all development is dependent on democracy. Some dictatorships have managed to eke out varying levels of development.
In the developed world where democracy is practiced in various forms, the one common element readily observed is the holding of free and fair elections. But while this in and of itself does not represent the sum total of democracy, it is considered the starting point that should lead to the passing and strict enforcement of laws, and establishment of institutions to ensure adherence to such laws and distribution of socioeconomic benefits to the people.
Now, this is where many elected regimes in developing countries encounter myriad problems, because politicians tend to experiment with different types of socioeconomic systems, perhaps due to cultural, ethnic or even religious considerations, as vehicles to help get them to their desired destinations.
For this reason, while it is not always wise for developing countries to try and tailor socioeconomic systems in exact accordance to what obtains in developed countries, it still might be useful to studiously analyze those foreign systems to determine what aspects may be applied to local settings.
One of the tragedies of developing countries that were once colonies is that some political leaders got caught up in the sea change of anti-colonialism and decided to embrace the socialist or communist ideology, not only as the vehicle to move their socioeconomic system, but to tear away from the colonialist system. For many, rhetoric eventually trumped reality and, in time, the results were rueful.
Zimbabwe, under President Robert Mugabe, is the latest example of a post-independent developing country that was once a thriving economy with tremendous economic potential but which now teeters on the brink of a total collapse. Mugabe, who went from deliverer to dictator, held elections but they were eventually rigged, and his knuckleheaded approach to socioeconomic development proved that democracy cannot be confined to the ballot box.
That neighbouring South Africa continues to do reasonably well now that the blacks have replaced whites in government is testimony to the black government’s decision to retain fundamentals of the old socioeconomic system for development. Quite tellingly, unlike Zimbabwe, South Africa’s whites have been allowed to keep their business holdings and everyone is trying to get along.
But apart from sound and balanced socioeconomic principles, undergirded by sound and balanced democratic principles and independent institutions of government, it was also very important to recognize the principle inherent in ‘no man is an island’. No country, no matter how politically independent it thinks it is, can survive without interacting with other countries. And when many former colonies became politically independent, they faced a choice of retaining a working relationship with their former colonial masters – now part of the developed world – or embarking on the ill-fated journey of forming a global leftwing alliance.
Unfortunately, this alliance, strongly pushed by the former USSR, lacked global structure and strength, causing most new political adventurers to lose their way and end up either being run out of office or adopting dictatorial techniques to hold on to power. Today, not only have many politically independent countries returned to their former ‘colonial owners’ for ‘north-south’ or ‘rich-poor’ economic support, but the most precious resources of these former colonies – the people – are migrating in droves to their former ‘colonial owners’, taking their precious experience and skills to help further develop the already developed world.
The vacuum being created is exacerbating the development crisis for current political leaders, but it also is a huge slap in the face of anti-colonial fighters and preachers as those unable to migrate are wondering where is the promised socioeconomic euphoria that is supposed to follow political independence by way of adhering to the practice and process of local democracy?
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
