Pete’s blog

Democracy is a very elusive thing – how do you get it and how do you keep it (and do you really want it anyway)? Is South Africa’s attitude towards Zimbabwe and Aristide perhaps the way to promote democracy, and is America’s intervention in Iraq the wrong way?

Firstly, what is democracy? Democracy at its most basic is government by the consensus of the people. People get to vote on who they want to lead them and what they want their government to do. The two most important features of democracy is that everyone has an equal say, so an uneducated labourer has the same voting power as a multi-million dollar tycoon (I am talking an ideal type here – please do not think of America, because they are a very weak democracy). Secondly, democracy provides a means through which a government can be changed through non-violent means. In the good old days, if you did not like your ruler, you either had to have a glorious revolution or pay a foreign king to come and chop off your king’s head. In a democracy, if you don’t like your leader, all you have to do is wait 4 or 5 years till the next election.

The problems with democracy are that it is very expensive, very fragile and can lead to short-sighted governments (all they want is to win the next election). Arguably another problem with democracy is that an uneducated labourer has the same voting power as a multi-million dollar tycoon, but in my view, I can’t trust a multi-million dollar tycoon to make the right decision any more than I can trust a street sweeper. Democracy is very expensive – voter education, canvassing, elections, communications by the government to the population, etc. The problem is that a democratic government is accountable to the population (once again ideal type) and being accountable takes a lot of resources. Also a democracy is very fragile and requires that people believe strongly in democracy and are willing to take part in the democratic process. If people lose faith in democracy, they at best become apathetic and don’t vote, at worst they have a coup d’état and forcible change governments.

So why do I say South Africa is doing a better job of promoting democracy than America? The most crucial part of democracy is that the population MUST support democracy. In Zimbabwe, the people must use their democratic powers in the elections next year and remove Mugabe from power, else democracy will never take root. If South Africa intervenes or imposes their will, they will reset the development of democracy to square one and Zimbabweans will once again have to learn about democracy. People have to learn and understand that it is within their power to take control of their own government – if another country is always intervening, then they will never learn. South Africa supporting Aristide (deposed leader of Haiti) and being willing to take him into exile is also arguably the best thing. Aristide was democratically elected, it doesn’t matter if he turned into a corrupt leader – the Haitian themselves should have booted him out in the next elections. Having a coup and forcing him out will never breed democracy and stability. In a lot of countries, the population have come to believe and accept that the best way to change governments is through a coup, rather than through elections – a bad lesson, and one that will take a long time to unlearn.

I do have many concerns about Zimbabwe and Haiti though. The question I ask myself, is what can you do as a foreign power if democracy is breaking down in a country? A tough question. Interfere, and you may end up breaking the democracy you are trying to preserve; remain quiet and watch the democracy tear itself apart anyway. The one thought I have is what about a rapid response election force – a bit like a peace-keeping force, except these guys are experts at holding elections and vote counting. If you have an independent team that can provide education, security and fixing-free elections… Don’t know how feasible it is.

The last thought on democracy – is democracy the most appropriate form of government for a developing nation? Winston Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government… except for all the others. But the high cost of democracy, the low literacy rates and the general short-sightedness of democracy are perhaps not the correct thing for a country that wants to develop. 2 case-in-points – Germany and Japan after WW2 were administered by the allied forces, and were most definitely not democracies for many years; China more recently is doing outstandingly well with an economic liberalisation policy, but not a government liberalisation policy (compared with Russia that tried to do both at the end of the Cold War and now has a 3rd world economy). The problem is how do you find a decent, non-corrupt, benevolent dictator nowadays? Anyone keen to volunteer?