Can Democracy Bring Development?

There is currently a debate on Facebook inspired by the Burkina Faso dictator, Captain Ibrahim Traoré who claimed recently that “it is impossible to name a country that has developed in democracy.” Speaking in support of Traore’s self-serving anti-freedom rant, a few commentators argued that the West became developed before they had democracy, therefore democracy did not contribute to their development. They went further to say that that African countries should also become developed first before seeking to become democratic. The entire argument of Traoré and his defenders seems to rely on delegitimising 19^th century western European countries, and the United States as democratic by pointing out to imperfections in the democratic structures of these countries.

 

My counter argument is that even though the western developed countries were not perfect democracies in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, they were nonetheless democracies. These countries were not ruled by dictators or absolute monarchs as their true leaders were elected by the people, with clear separation of power in their arms of government. To deny their democracy would require ignoring the nuanced and evolving nature of democracy itself, and the crucial role that its deepening has played in the very development that these countries now enjoy.

 

At its heart, democracy is fundamentally about the ability of people to choose their leaders. For those who want to argue that countries can’t develop with democracy, they will point to the absence of universal suffrage at the heart of 19^th century western democracies. I believe the absence of universal suffrage is an imperfection that is not enough to deny that a country was on the democratic path. Consider the United States in 1800, where President John Adams lost his re-election in an election around 2% of US population voted in. In what other system would an incumbent leader be kicked out of office by voters from around the country?

 

Was Nigeria a democracy in 1960 when women in Northern Nigeria were denied the right to vote? If not, what were we? Was England in 1900 a democracy with a limited male franchise? Even today, teenagers, many of whom work and pay taxes, are largely denied the vote in most democracies, and England is currently debating extending suffrage to 16-year-olds – does this make them undemocratic right now? Limited franchise, in various forms, has been a recurring feature in the evolution of democratic systems because democracy is not a static ideal achieved overnight. It is often a work in progress, a system that improves and expands over time as more people are allowed to participate in electing their leaders. The crucial point is being on that path.

 

The Traore argument posits a sequential model: development first, then democracy. However, this ignores the significant development that occurred as Western democracies became more inclusive. Let’s consider the United Kingdom in the first half of the 19th century. By many measures of modern development, it would be difficult to label it “developed, due to its widespread poverty, limited access to education, high illiteracy rates, and a life expectancy around 40 years. Nigeria today arguably performs better on some of these metrics, yet we wouldn’t consider ourselves developed. The UK of then was a democracy with limited franchise. The modern development of the UK truly took off as the country became more democratic. The gradual expansion of the franchise, driven by social movements and political pressure that democracy enables, forced elected leaders to become more responsive to the needs of a broader population. This directly led to transformative changes in governance, the establishment of free basic education, the creation of the National Health Service, housing and improvements in town planning – all of which bore incredible fruits in the 20th century. The United Kingdom that gave birth to Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist was not the same UK of one hundred years later.

 

In any case, there are even more recent examples of countries that have developed in democracy. Just look at Poland. In 1990, shortly before becoming democratic, Poland was a poor country facing depression and high inflation and whose economy was a mess demonstrated by a GDP per capita of less than $2000. Basically ruined by decades of communist rule. Today in democracy, Poland is now classified as a high-income economy with GDP per capita of over $22,000. Life expectancy has grown by 10%, education is booming with university enrolment quadrupling since 1990. All these while citizens are able to choose and criticise their leaders.

 

The other part of the argument is that the West has tried to force democracy on Africans with the marketing line that only specific type of democracy can lead to development. The truth is, while the Western colonising powers did give their African colonies democracy on independence, many of these ex-colonies promptly abandoned democracy for dictatorship. And the West did not stop working with those countries including Nigeria under all its military dictators (expect perhaps Sani Abacha). In fact, the West has been accused of truncating African democratic governments when it suits them. So, this West forcing democracy on us is not true.

 

In any case, the West does not have a single type of democracy so there is no way for them to force one type of democracy on us.   Across the democratic world, the mechanisms for electing heads of government vary, the appointment of the judiciary differs (with some US states even electing judges), and constitutional frameworks range from written to unwritten. As previously argued, universal suffrage, as we understand it today, has been a relatively recent development in many established democracies. Yet, the core elements remain: free elections where a significant percentage of citizens can participate, the rule of law that limits arbitrary power, and the presence of a free opposition able to contest power. None of these elements need to be perfect to constitute a democracy.

 

Applying this to Nigeria, the path to greater development lies not in abandoning the democratic experiment, despite its challenges with electoral integrity, but in strengthening its foundations. Just as the expansion of the franchise in the UK and even the US led to increased pressure on leaders to deliver for the country, improvements in Nigeria’s democracy through freer and fairer elections and a strengthened rule of law is what is likely to yield positive outcomes for more and more of our people. As more Nigerians feel their voices matter and their votes count, the demand for good governance and policies that benefit the majority will grow, driving sustainable development.

 

The argument that development precedes democracy misinterprets the historical trajectory of Western nations, where true and inclusive development often followed the deepening and broadening of democratic participation. Other non-western countries like Japan, South Korea, and Poland have also leveraged democracy in their journey to development. Imperfect as it may be, the ability of people to choose their leaders, coupled with the ongoing struggle for greater inclusivity and accountability, remains Nigeria’s best bet. While democracy is not a magic bullet, it provides the most conducive framework for long-term development in Nigeria. We’ve tried military dictatorships, and we only got bad governance and no rights. We must therefore continue to work on strengthening our democratic institutions, rather than being demoralised into pursuing experiments that could erode the hard-won rights we already have. May we not see the devil.

 

Subscribe to Notifications