Link Between Democracy and Development in South Africa, Brazil, and India
Development and Democracy
Democracy and development are believed to be linked along the realignments of shifting political balance between economic performance, social forces, and policy choices. These are aligned with different development strategies and models, and the responsibility of a political regime and institution. Different theorists identify different factors in the society, legal, economic, and political systems as drivers of development and democracy. According to Ruckert (2008) identifies that democracy can arise from industrial welfare states which are the result of social welfare regimes (p.176). In this thought, development along the lines of political realignment, organized urban and social development, and human right polices lead to development. However, in other realms a political shift towards democracy is accompanied by economic transition that boosts development. This research uses the India, Brazil, and South Africa as case points to identify and demystify the complex link between democracy and development.
Often, democracy and development in developing nations is measured in terms of political economic, democratization approaches, policy and regulations, normative issues, and press freedom. The study uses South Africa as a case example for the nation made radical political and social shifts from the traditional apartheid practices to achieve democracy. According to Buhlungu, Daniel, Lutchman, and Southall (2007) South Africa has made tremendous shifts from apartheid to democracy, which is accompanied by economic transition indicated by liberalization, leading to development (p.227). Democracy allowed the principles of globalization to distribute capital and stop the restriction of protected local markets, the preserve for whites, leading to innovation and robust markets. This saw an acceleration of economic growth, which led to development through political efforts like the “Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa” (ASGISA) (Ruckert, 2008, p.227). It is evident from South Africa’s example that democracy led to an increase in effective and equitable public administration systems. These systems put in place policies and institutions that increased investor confidence, led to industrial and economic growth. The stable democratic environment especially under the leadership of Nelson Mandela saw a steady and constant economic growth. This growth provided means to fight poverty, deprivation, degradation, disease, squalor, and slavery consequently leading to development at the macro- and micro-economic level (Ruckert, 2008, p.227). a second link between democracy and development is the result of economic growth, in which public institutions and leaders equitably distribute national wealth and resources.
Ruckert, (2008) associates democracy and development in terms of social, political, and economic equity. This is associated with the ability of political and public leaders creating and providing a set of freedoms like freedom of speech, association, religious belief, due process, freedom of press, and equal rights for minorities. The ability of a democratic state to provide these rights leads to freedom of citizens to think freely, is innovative, and creative consequently leading to development (Ruckert, 2008, p.228). These freedoms also lead to development for they call for the mobilization of citizenry to demand credibility, accountability, and openness from their leaders and public programs. This was particularly evident as a source of social advancement and development in South Africa following the departure of apartheid, the embrace of democracy, and the provision of human rights and freedoms (Ruckert, 2008, p.228). The social classification was eliminated as minority and marginalized communities received the benefits of democracy through social programs.
The author identifies that this failed in South Africa, and can be linked with the large numbers of unemployed especially among the blacks despite the advent of democracy. Lack of equity in South Africa is marked by a focus by political leaders on expanding economics through capital-intensive strategies rather than labor-intensive strategies. The capital policies put in place led to high unemployment rates that increased the gap between the rich and the poor. In theory, in a democracy there should be delivery of services, faith-based groups and social movements, eschews of basic-income grant for the unemployed (Ruckert, 2008, p.227). However, despite the poor distribution of national resources, several aspects from South Africa’s model indicate democracy and development are positively correlated.
According to Padayachee (2007), development through democracy occurs when public and political administration systems are in sync with local and traditional systems, and there is civil liberty, harmony, and justice (p.445). This was lacking prior to democracy in 1994, as traditional chieftain authorities often crashed with the apartheid government over local administration, especially in the rural Xhalanga area. During this era, there were tensions in rural areas over civil society issues like control over land and land allocation, especially in relation to traditional land rights ownership (Padayachee, 2007, p.445). The advent of democracy, civil rights freedom, justice, and equity following 1994 political changes were achieved through a new constitution. This constitution increased the democratic rights of education, social rights, shelter, health, food, and clean water for all. This led to a large part of the black population accessing public institutions, services, and goods that were the preserve of the white, especially ownership of ancestral land.
However, Padachayee (2007) identifies that democracy was not fully achieved in South Africa, since the constitution failed to define the relationship between elected leaders and traditional authority (p.445). This is identified, as a challenge to developmental efforts for traditional authority is a socio-cultural aspect that is hereditary and highly valued. This led to tensions in 1995 and 1996, when the government tried to expand elected public administration and democracy to the rural areas. The introduction of new political structures in the rural area was meant to develop the areas through state-led development projects (Padachayee, 2007, p.445). However, this was hampered by a failure to incorporate the local traditional authority in these democratic and development efforts. This led to confusion and chaos as efforts met resistance. This was a gross oversight for effective realization of democracy and development in the society requires substantive approaches like participation by all, and representation of minorities.
A third example of link between democracy and development in South Africa is the creation of labor rights and an elevation of labor standards, which led to social developments. According to Ruckert (2008), democracy brought about labor rights and higher labor standards that were indicated by fair, equal, and justice in labor practices and equity in employment (p.227). These were introduced in the late 1990s and overcame the legacy of exploitation and injustice by the apartheid government. Democracy created systems that protected employees from employers that used downsizing, outsourcing, subcontract, and casual labor, to evade primary responsibility of employers. This reduced poverty levels especially among laborers, and saw an increase in social development from increased and unprecedented tax collection (Ruckert, 2008, p.227). This is an example that democracy does lead to development as public leaders make use of alternative substantive approaches like provision of decent incomes and stable jobs, justice in employment. This consequently leads to elimination of extreme poverty and improve social development through better education, healthcare, and housing as employees can afford these services.
According to Sachs, Sérgio, and Wilheim (2009) development through democracy is only possible if leadership recognizes that it has the responsibility to create state intervention efforts to the economy (p.158). Development is only possible if the democratic government realizes that growth is possible by implementation of social and economic justice systems. The failure to create will in a democratic government towards committing to economic, social, and political growth leads to a failure of development. Such was the case in Brazil in the 1970s following the return of democracy through the government of President Ernesto Geisel. This democratic government followed an official discourse directed by internal political détente, which lead to the creation of a series of restrictive political measures identified as “April Package” (Sachs, Sérgio, and Wilheim, 2009, p.157). The tight restrictions made political and economic transitions difficult as civil liberties and rights were infringed by the state. There was a lack of national development despite the presence of a democratic government. This is associated to an increase of social and civil society reaction to the democratic rule rather than focusing on social programs that would equitable distribute resources (Sachs, Sérgio, and Wilheim, 2009, p.157). Moreover, restrictions limited the ability of political leaders and public administrators to fulfill their duties in their respective public programs. This implies that democracy must create a will and participation in public leadership, civil society, and public for social advances to occur.
Democracy and development are also linked through strong political forces and lobbying that organizes interests to improve human capital formation and social protection. According to Hunter and Sugiyama (2009), competitive political systems are straightforward and lead to increment of the voting power of citizens, creation of progressive constitution, increased effective governance, and social movements that lead to development. These political systems act along federal sectors like education, social security, public assistance, healthcare, and social reforms to improve the health and welfare of citizens and thereby realize development. This is indicated in Brazil, a country currently facing equity enhancement reforms and poverty alleviation challenges (Hunter & Sugiyama, 2009, p.97). In the 1980s, Brazil appeared to be heading to major social and economic developments through increased democratic awareness.
This awareness was associated by political scholars with an improvement of the voting power of its masses of poor people, the adoption of a progressive promulgated constitution in 1988, advocacy for the poor through social movements and leadership through a democratic system. Leadership of “PSDB (Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira, Brazilian Social Democratic Party) and the PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores, Workers’ Party) marked the democratic system (Hunter & Sugiyama, 2009, p.97). However, there seems to be a failure of development as strong political influence created strong interests that changed social policy agreements by patronage-oriented politicians.
These politicians had vested interest, which dampened universal reforms and eliminated discretionary social programs that were meant for increasing social equity. The political interests saw individuals with political power diffuse the federal disbursement and structured programs created to distribute resources equitably along social security, public assistance, healthcare, and education sectors (Hunter and Sugiyama, 2009, p.98). Unfortunately, these sectors also represented areas that had the largest national budget and public spending following their prioritization to enhance social equity. The research finds that Brazil is a perfect example of a nation whose post-authoritarian government that successfully created programs that extended to marginalized communities and individuals to ensure there is basic level of social protection (Hunter and Sugiyama, 2009, p.98). This was successful in the protection of social rights, until powerful political individuals used their influence to re-distribute these rights to the privileged interest groups. This increased poverty levels in the 1990s, as the government spent national resources to reduce poverty levels through the social programs.
The review of literature indicates that democratic politics gives citizens wisdom to say in decision making which impact their lives and increase their participation. Participation in a democratic government occurs through decentralization of governance and thereby a decentralization of policy-making and implementation to the community level. This ensures that federal efforts allow for smaller and robust community level engagement in decision-making, which increase participatory development (Chhotray, 2011, p.xvi). Chhotray (2011), identifies that development occurs in a democratic nation where development policies, practices, and programs portray apolitical development (p.xvi). Chhotray (2011) uses the example of India’s Kurnool District Watershed Soil and Water Conservation project (p.xvi). The program was set up for the development of India’s, Andhra Pradesh rural area by improving the livelihoods of residents in the 1990s. The project management was decentralized from the federal government and had increased participatory decision-making with the local government and citizens.
It was noticed that the project was a success since it was anti-politics. This was crucial since at the time, local India democracy entailed village and political elites that led to a wide range of negative political practices (Chhotray, 2011, p.xvi). Practices common at the time were corruption, factionalism, nepotism, and violent conflict, which were destructive and distracting especially to the realization of constructive business development. These political practices were directed towards the Watershed Development project. In theory, development is meant to be anti-politics, but this fails since politicians describe politics and poverty in apolitical terms, which warrant technical and political solutions (Chhotray, 2011, p.xvi). Politicians use democracy tools like lobbying to sell development strategies that define issues like poverty and disease in apolitical terms.
Another aspect of democracy that brings about development is citizenship as seen in the models of policy-making, decisiveness, political will in tackling problems. Banerjee (2000) identifies that these mantras are necessary in realizing development through democratic leadership (p.732). The author uses the case of India, which has a shortcoming of its democratic model. In this model, leaders lack the authenticity and representativeness required of democratic leaders. Banerjee (2000) shows that these shortcomings were evident in the prevention of the advance effects of a famine on Indian population in 1986 in the state of Orissa. Public leaders lacked the political will and decisiveness in finding solutions to assist villages in the state counteracts the effects of the famine. The failure of democratic will in India was also indicated in the failure to complete the Narmada Valley Dam Projects due to political interference and personal interests. The two cases are examples of the negative effect democracy can have on development.
In conclusion, the three cases show that democracy must come before development. democracy leads to development since it leads to the creation of elements like political will, decisiveness, accountability, justice, fairness, and equity in decision- and policy-making. These consequently lead to decentralization of power, decision- and policy-making, and implementation to local government and citizenry. In the process, a democratic government is able to create safety nets through which to create economic and social programs, distribute national resources, call for accountability, while increasing citizenry participation. Development is realized through these systems which assist citizenry are creative and innovative.
Reference List
Banerjee, S. 2000, “India against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality / Democracy and the State: Welfare, Secularism, and Development in Contemporary India / Development and Democracy in India”, The American Political Science Review, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 732-734.
Buhlungu, S, Daniel, J, Lutchman, J and Southall, R 2007, “State of the Nation: South Africa 2007,” Human Sciences Research Council.
Chhotray, V 2011, “The Anti-Politics Machine in India: State, Decentralization and Participatory Watershed Development (Anthem South Asia Studies),” 1st ed., Anthem Press.
Hunter, W & Sugiyama, NB 2009, “Democracy and social policy in Brazil: Advancing basic needs, preserving privileged interests”, Latin American Politics and Society, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 29-IV.
Padayachee, V 2007, The Development Decade?: Economic and Social Change in South Africa, 1994-2004. Human Sciences Research Council.
Ruckert, A 2008, “Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe”, Latin American Politics and Society, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 176-180.
Sachs, I, Sérgio, P and Wilheim, J 2009, “Brazil: A Century of Change,” The University of North Carolina Press.
