Though I wont be able to make it to class this week, I do have some input that I've been mulling over all week. In regards to the theme of How to Change the World--what I find most impressive about programs involving "Patient Capitalism" and Social Entrepreneurship is their genuine goal to elicit change rather than impose it. Regardless of our circumstance; whether we're in the governmental or non-governmental sector, I hope that we would find ourselves in support of an agenda that builds human capacity rather than one that encourages dependency. And, quite frankly, I feel the latter has been the result more often than not in the case of Africa. I do, in fact, think these results stem from an impatient agenda--whether by policymakers or capitalists.
One element of these undesirable results in Africa, I think, is our obsession with instilling an institution of democracy. This subject has been on my mind ever-increasingly this semester, mostly due to a notion stated by one of my professors that I immediately felt uneasy about. He said something to the effect of "We do know, however, that having democratic elements in a country will contribute to a less government corruption and allows for more progression." Obviously, I was more than a little taken back by this; not because I think democracy has led to the corruption of the U.S. per se. But, as we've discussed, democracy is instituted from the inside out; not something that is forced. I would venture to say that democracy should never be included in an agenda for international development (so sue me Glenn Beck). But, I say this because I think so often people attribute the liberties we have in the U.S. to a democratic system that our country was supposedly "founded upon". In truth, though, our civil liberties such as: voice and accountability, empowerment of women, public education, and the right to business start-up, aren't the spawn of a democratic system. A Democratic system is just as susceptible to corruption as the next, possibly even more. Our goal shouldn't be to instill democracy, but to improve human capacity and condition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well said. I do not think democracy per say should be a focus of development. And, as you said, for democracy to be legitimate it has to be home grown. It cannot be forced. Monarchies (and other political systems) can be just as effective as democracies. However, the nice thing about democracy is that it is (presumably) easy to get rid of politicians you don't like (however, try explaining that to the good citizens of Iran) whereas in a dictatorship or monarchy is rather difficult to get rid of people. Nonetheless, I don't think democracy is a necessary condition for development or prosperity.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do think has to exist is liberty and economic freedom. People have the right to do whatever they want to with their lives (both economically and socially). The reason I think democracy comes up in discussion so much is because democracy by nature tends to lend itself fairly well to liberty and freedom.
My brother is an eccentric computer programmer that lives in a shack in Kentucky (hows that for an appeal to authority). It is his opinion that a liberal free market is something that develops naturally through human interaction and that democracy is something that society has developed to protect the integrity of that market. Many people think the other way around, that out of democracy grew capitalism.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that the US institution of democracy has just done a good job at protecting the market and the market under the tutelage of democracy lead the US to be highly developed.