MUST AFRICA FOLLOW CHINA'S POLITICAL SYSTEM?
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.
Many African scholars believe that democracy works better in a developed society, and therefore development has to come first before democracy is introduced. Yet, others have also 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 , 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, other African scholars have also argued that civil society, which is a requisite for democratic development, has little chance of flourishing in an environment of extreme poverty, like Africa.
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 many have argued 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.
According to them, 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.
Democracy 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. Political competition and participation only have meaning if human rights are also observed.
It would, I believe, be difficult for African countries to develop without a proper democratic system in place. African private investors do not have the means to set up independent businesses; and foreigners do not, normally, invest in countries where there are 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.
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 Dr. 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 created several political societies that became major obstacles to economic growth and development.
The military regimes that followed later, after Dr. Nkrumah’s government, further deteriorated the already fragile Ghanaian economy and scared many foreign investors away. The increase in the number of non-Ghanaian owned companies in the country in the forth republic underpins this argument. There has never been any instance in Africa that a military regime has worked.
Botswana’s economy has been one of the best in Africa because of political stability and the rule of law. They are now middle income country and moving closer to high income status. They have had a genuine functioning liberal democratic system since independence, and there has not been any civil war or anything of that sort during regime transitions.
They have one of the best banking systems in Africa. Around 1999, it was estimated that 45% of all businesses- and mainly the large scale businesses- in Botswana were owned by foreigners. 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.
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 have said 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.
Many have said that China’s economy has been able to rise to become the best in the world without democracy.
But this is a specious argument. The Chinese produce a lot of goods for both domestic use and exportation, while Africans, apart from natural resources, do not produce and trade in any other product with the rest of the world. Africans do not have technological innovation skills like the Chinese.
Again, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) alone must not be used to mean development- it is just a fraction of it. Development is multi-dimensional and involves increase in income, improvement in quality of life, individual freedom, freedom of speech and so on.
Although economic indicators show that China’s economy is doing well, the majority of their people live under poor conditions. They are exploited by their employers and they are not given the chance to give full vents to their grievances.
Democracy is certainly a political system with some weak points, but I believe it is the best form of government we have at the moment and think 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.
If democracy is working well in Botswana, I do not see why it should fail in other African countries.
It is the most conducive political system that will allow the masses to elect business minded leaders to give impulse to business and industry and also attract more foreign investors.
Author: ROBERT MENSAH
Email:
Esta dirección de correo electrónico está siendo protegida contra los robots de spam. Necesita tener JavaScript habilitado para poder verlo.
