TIGblogs - davyk

Democracy: One size does not fit all

By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia

IN modern-day society, it is generally agreed and viewed that democracy is the best system of governance but, as even Aristotle admitted centuries ago, it has its own shortcomings.

To many countries in the developing world today, democracy has become a transcendent aspiration more espoused by donor-mongering civic groups than it is practised by society.

Many countries that have thrown off the yoke of colonialism are, by virtue of historical colonial links, either trying their best or being persuaded if not coerced into adopting Western-style democracy.

For Africa, the fact is that Western-style democracy is not only unsuitable, but evidently not workable in the least.

Since Western colonial empires started falling in the 1950s, Africa has had this roller-skater political ride characterised by the rise and fall of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, the serial military dictatorships of Nigeria and the spirited but not so successful socialist campaigns by Mozambique’s Samora Machel and Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara.

We have also witnessed Western-propped dictatorships such as Uganda’s Idi Amin and Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko, the unforgettable civil wars of Mozambique and Angola, the genocide of Rwanda — all the way to the diplomatic warfare between the West and Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

The incompatibility of Western-style democracy to the internal dynamics of former colonies is what has led to many civil wars and secessions, as seen in the break-up of the original Pakistan leading to the creation of Bangladesh.

Western-backed Congolese secessionist Moise Tshombe still stands out in African history as a notorious villain.

There are a few factors that make Western-style parliamentary democracy a facade at its best in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

For Africa many states are still struggling to become nations after the imposition of colonial boundaries and without national unity it is futile to preach Western-style democracy in these countries.

It is best to first find what the various indigenous groupings want collectively before anyone can dream of creating a United States of Africa.

Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed by one society on another — not with the many cultural and value-based incompatibilities inherent between them.

National unity is the basis for a democratic dispensation and this is why the Western-sponsored confrontational approach to attaining democracy has only succeeded in fuelling conflicts across the world.

A united approach towards the resolution of problems facing Zimbabwe is already proving to be more promising in only two weeks when compared to the confrontation of the last eight years in the so-called struggle for democracy.

Some argue that the idea of relative democracy based on various cultural and economic needs is dangerous for international relations.

Rather, it is dangerous for the spread of Western influence, and Western influence is not what is called international relations.

Secondly, accelerated economic growth has been proven to have a tendency of increasing the role of governments in economic life.

This means that countries that seriously want to catch up with global development will inevitably have to run planned economies and significant government influence will be evident in the running of these programmes.

China has virtually shot to the top of global economic growth by insisting on government involvement in the planning of their economy. It is a blatant lie to credit unabated free market forces as the magic behind China’s economic growth.

This government role in economic affairs is what Western-style democracy calls a violation of property rights and governance by unsound policies.

But is it not a fact that if strong leadership does not take control of the means of production then imperial capital will? Imperial capital, just like colonial capital before it, is for the benefit of the owners of the capital and not for indigenous populations.

Thirdly, democracy is a human character naturally founded on values, be they social, economic, cultural or political.

Evidently the Western social order is not necessarily the same with that found everywhere else and many people are simply not prepared to pretend to be Europeans in the name of democracy.

The West cannot democratise the world on matters such as morality, culture, freedoms and perception.

These are value-based aspects of social life that vary from country to country if not village to village. While there is agreement for some form of uniformity, there is no evidence that a Western lead towards this is what the world needs. To the contrary there is evidence that Western political influence in many countries has been more detrimental than it has been useful.

Fourthly, democracy is supposed to be dependent on public opinion and the West want to shape public opinion across the world and this naturally creates conflict and resentment with political leadership right across the world, Africa included.

Africa has an opinion of its own and Africans have their own homogeneous aspirations towards happiness and prosperity and so do Latin Americans and Asians.

They do not need Western "advice" in defining what happiness is. It is this subversive interference in the internal affairs of other countries that undermines the democratic processes on the planet.

The argument that the West cannot leave Africans, Asians and Arabs killing each other is puerile if one looks at how much Europeans have not only killed each other in the past but also how they continue to kill people of various nationalities across the world today.

If countries are left to shape their own public opinion without undue interference there is no doubt that the global democratic process will develop faster.

The role of South Africa in settling the Zimbabwean political stand-off is one good example of how effective regional synergies can be when given a chance.

Fifth, democracy is now viewed in line with human rights and the West clearly preaches the primacy of individual rights over collective rights.

The African culture, for example, is a collective system that views society as supreme to the being.

This is why there is a tendency to check undue individual freedoms in the interest of peace and stability and this is often interpreted as repression.

To Africa, China and other collective cultures this regulation of individual rights and ensuring they conform to the aspirations of the wider society means order.

Subsistence rights such as the right to land, food, life and shelter cannot be inferior to procedural rights such as expression, association and conscience.

There are countless Western-funded NGOs tirelessly fighting for the cause of procedural rights in non-Western countries where poverty is often threatening to wipe out entire populations and the organisers are strangely convinced that their priorities are perfect.

It does not occur to the West that freedom of expression and association is meaningless to a starving population.

Looking at all these factors it is simply hard to believe that the Western standard of democracy to which the world is subjected today will ever in essence facilitate any form of meaningful democracy.

Today China is viewed in the West as not only undemocratic but as anti-democratic.

The Western tradition erroneously assumes that a communist political system and a capitalist economy cannot co-exist.

The enigma that is today’s China is but the embodiment of the naivete of this kind of thinking. It is almost 60 years since the People’s Republic of China was proclaimed by Mao Zedong’s Communist Party and in tomorrow the Beijing Olympics will showcase a government planned, market-driven, technologically sophisticated country that is presided over by the same "authoritarian" political party that Mao Zedong founded.

One wonders if it is Mao Zedong or John F. Kennedy turning in the grave at this point in time.

Is this the triumph of a loathed communist political system or that of American capitalism?

China will undoubtedly use the Olympics to raise the country’s profile just like South Africa will do with the soccer World Cup in 2010.

The West still insists that China cannot be gracious Olympic hosts because according to Western common sense, freedoms of expression and association are alien to Chinese communist norms.

The IOC has been lambasted by the West for their decision to give the Games to Beijing, purely on the basis of China’s alleged anti-democratic style of governance.

However, the athletes are currently gathered in the Games village and the communist Chinese do hold the world in thrall.

They will strive to please their guests according to their own standards and expectations, not according to the West’s standards of democracy and happiness.

As usual the West will insist on creating tension through this sporting event, because to the Western ruling elite every global platform, be it sport, a United Nations gathering or a visiting Catholic Pope — everything is a platform for the negotiation of cultural and political boundaries.

To these political leaders it is either the Western way or the high way.

To them democracy is Western by definition, and this is why the negotiations involving Zimbabwe’s ruling Zanu-PF and the opposition parties are meaningless in the absence of Western input.

Zimbabwe needs not be held to Western standards of democracy because those standards are plainly largely irrelevant, much as they are preached to us daily by tireless voices driven by donor funding or by the romanticising effect of the glitter of Western capitals.

Beijing is now glittering without Western standards of democracy and equally Harare can stand and shine on a local model of democracy and system of governance.

For Zimbabwe it is always homeland or death. Together we will overcome.

l Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www. rwafawarova.com

http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=109&cat=10