THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS THE IDEA OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

The ideal of participatory democracy is to give ordinary citizens the possibility of participating in
the public decision-making. The very idea of democracy has changed significantly from the
ancient Greek direct democracies to the dominant form of liberal representative democracy
existing today in most of the modern nation-states.[1] While in the ancient Greek laws and
important decisions were debated and voted on by an assembly comprising of every single
citizen, the modern liberal democracies are based on the political representation and elites'
competition. Ancient democracies were little city-states like Athens that allowed only a few
thousand of their people to be citizens, making it possible for the entire voting population to be
gathered in one place while leaving the labour in the hands of the slaves and women and even for
representatives to be elected on the basis of a lottery.[2] For modern nation-states with universal
suffrage this is impractical. Modern democracies with mass electorates are all representative
democracies in which elected politicians make decisions on behalf of the people, rather than the
people making decisions directly. Although purely direct democracy may be impractical, there
are several ways in which representative democracies can become much more participative. In
other words, there are several ways in which a more participatory approach of democracy can
allow citizens to become direct contributors to the public decisions and improve the political
representation in our liberal institutions. Several political participatory formulas already exist
today. Some of them are already consolidated in current democracies, for example primary
elections in political parties,[3] limitation of mandates and rotation of public positions.[4] Other
examples are less common but growing, for figure constitutional or legislative refrenda,
[5] popular legislative initiative, or participatory budgeting. California, for example, allows its
citizen-initiated referenda: anyone can propose a new law, and if they can get enough signatures
on a petition in support of it, the law is put directly to the people in a public vote. [6] Another
example is the right of recall: allowing citizens to force early elections if enough of them sign a
petition saying they are unhappy with the current government (used in California and British
Columbia).[7] There are significant examples regarding participatory budgeting, such as Porto
Alegre (Brasil), where citizens are involved directly in the configuration of the public
investments throughout territorial and sectorial meetings with experts, politicians, civil society
organisations and individual citizens.[8] Much greater participation is also increasingly possible
as a result of online voting and discussion that avoids the problem of bringing millions of people
to one place to make decisions.[9]

Then, if we imagine a continuum between a complete direct democracy, where all the citizens
participate in all public decisions, and a pure representative one, where the government of public
affairs lies solely in the hands of political or representative elites, we can see that some kind of
intermediate formulas might be discussed and applied in the existing democratic political
communities. We should understand democracy as a gradual process instead of a binary concept.
[10] This means thinking of government as a phenomena that can be more or less democratic
rather than only democratic or nondemocratic. As a result we will see that participatory forms of
government can improve both, the efficiency and the sustainability of our political institutions in
the era of technological and educational revolution we live today.

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES DICTATORSHIP IS THE BEST PATH TO

DEVELOPMENT

Development is the sustained increase in standards of living of a country. There however is no

individual indicator that shows that a country is considered developed. The proxy that is usually
used is Gross Domestic product per capita which is the total amount a nation produces divided
by the countrys population. This then captures the relative performance of nations and usually
shows how developed a nation is.[1] What it does not show however is how equally that wealth
from that output is divided so it is possible that a nation that is very rich by GDP is actually not
very developed if all of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of one or two people, an example
of this is Equatorial Guinea which is considered a high income economy by the world bank yet
also has 76.8% of the population in poverty.[2] Dissatisfaction with this has led to the
development of the Human Development Index for the Development Reports of the United
Nations Development Programme. These include a broader range of indicators using Gross
National Income per capita (only slightly different from GDP) with purchasing power parity
(meaning it takes in to consideration differences in prices for the same product) as a wealth
component. It also includes life expectancy at birth for a health component, and mean years of
schooling and expected years of schooling to create an educated component. The index is
sometimes improved by adjusting for inequalities between the three.[3] In either case countries
tend to be categorised into Very High, High, Medium (with this being split into lower and upper
middle in the World Banks) and Low. A country might be said to be fully developed when it
reaches high. Development however might simply be taken as the movement between these
categories.

Dictatorship does not automatically result in development an increase in human wellbeing,

which can be evidenced by improved education, health, lifestyles and security. Neither does
democracy. There are cases both of democracies that have failed to develop, such as India and
Bangladesh, and there are a lot of instances where autocracies have failed to develop. On the
opposite side of the coin there are both cases where democracies have developed such as many
western countries; the UK, US, France, and cases where states have developed under a more
autocratic system such as South Korea, Singapore, and most recently China. It is China that is
the driving force behind current debates on whether dictatorships might be better than
democracies at encouraging at least the initial stages of growth.

There are however both advantages and disadvantages to each system when it comes to
encouraging development. A dictatorship has greater control over people and resources allowing
for more state driven economic growth, making it in a better position to develop than a
democratic state. This is most evident in early stages of development where development is
based on the production of goods. This debate will explore whether dictatorships are more likely
to develop then democracies.

Skip to main content

sign in

become a supportersubscribe

search

jobs
 dating

more

International edition

The Guardian - Back to home

home

world

development

europe

US

americas

asia

australia

africa

middle east

cities

home

UK

worldselected
 sport

football

opinion

culture

business

lifestyle

fashion

environment

tech

travel

browse all sections

Global development

Datablog

Democracy in African countries: five myths explored

Is Africa an undemocratic continent ruled by autocratic old men who pay lip service to the
wishes of the people who elected them?
 A Ugandan casts his vote in the countrys presidential election in February 2016. Photograph:
Dai Kurokawa/EPA

Global development is supported by

About this content

View more sharing options

Shares
325

Comments
32

Carla Kweifio-Okai and Josh Holder

Thursday 25 February 2016 12.12 GMTLast modified on Friday 28 April 2017 14.05 BST

From the US to Uganda, most countries grapple with a democratic deficit. Yet there is a popular
perception that Africa lags behind the rest of the world in this most nebulous of political terms.
This is despite the fact that millions of people elsewhere in the world live under regimes that can
be described as authoritarian, oppressive and undemocratic, while millions of people within
Africa enjoy the benefits of relatively good governance.
Former British leader Winston Churchill thought democracy was the worst form of government,
except for all the others. His words lays bare the imperfections of what we call democracy, but
also hint at how difficult it is to define.

1) Democracy is not spreading across Africa

Countries that describe themselves as democratic are members of a very broad church. They
range from nations that respect citizens political freedoms and civil liberties to those that repress
dissent and hold elections that are neither free nor fair. Just as other regions of the world
display varied systems of governance, there are discrepancies among African countries too.

Can democracy spread at the push of a button?

Read more

The Economist Intelligence Units democracy index identifies four categories of regime: full
democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid and authoritarian. Its 2015 index shows uneven progress
in sub-Saharan Africa, but notes a dramatic drop in successful coups from within since 2000,
and says holding regular elections is now largely commonplace. Even so, the index only awarded
full democracy status to Mauritius, a quiet achiever with strong rule of law.

Some countries defy the narrative of a democratic deficit in Africa, however. In its 2016
Freedom in the World report, Freedom House named Nigeria, Liberia and Ivory Coast among the
countries with the biggest improvements in political rights and civil liberties. In Nigeria, 2015
was the first year an opposition party gained power through elections. Botswana, Ghana, Cape
Verde and Benin have also been lauded as democratic examples.

This year, at least 16 African nations are holding presidential elections. Although elections do not
automatically lead to representative governments, competitive, multi-party elections constitute a
sine qua non for democracy, and regular ballots indicate progress towards ensuring citizens are
able to choose their leaders.
2) Africa is dominated by Big Men
A club of authoritarian leaders have maintained an iron grip on power in parts of Africa, either by
amending laws to extend their terms of office, hosting rubber-stamp elections or repressing
opposition and civil society. Of course, African countries are not alone in this Singapores
founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, led for more than three decades; Cambodias Hun Sen has also
been in power for more than three decades; and in Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev has held
office since before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In Africa, nine leaders have wielded power for more than 20 years; three of them have been at
the helm for more than 30 years. Equatorial Guineas President Teodoro Obiang Nguema
Mbasogo seized power from his uncle in 1979, the same year that Angolas Jos Eduardo dos
Santos rose to power. Yoweri Museveni won this months election in Uganda to continue his rule
after a vote marred by a lack of transparency.

Global Development - The Guardian Democrats v autocrats in Africa: is there

a winning formula? podcast

As the dust settles on the elections in Uganda, Hugh Muir looks at the trade-offs between
progress and freedom

Listen

But Africa is about more than this club of big men. Aside from the growing number of leaders
passing power peacefully after elections, there have also been cases of public backlash against
leaders who have tried to prolong their tenures, such as Zambias Frederick Chiluba and
Malawis Bakili Muluzi. In 2014, Blaise Compaors bid to extend his 27-year presidency in
Burkina Faso was thwarted by a violent popular uprising, while upheaval in Burundi was
sparked by President Pierre Nkurunzizas successful bid to prolong his term.
Nor is leadership the sole preserve of men. In 2006, Liberias Ellen Johnson Sirleafbecame
Africas first democratically elected female head of state. She was followed by Joyce Banda in
Malawi and Ameenah Gurib-Fakim in Mauritius.

Curiously, the Big Man moniker is generally applied only to African leaders. Some trace its roots
to colonial masters and the choices they made when selecting rulers to succeed them after
independence. As he prepared to step down as president in 2005, Tanzanias Benjamin Mkapa
called for a new, home-grown democracy. That Africa ended up with big men at State House is
not entirely unrelated to this colonial legacy. Colonialists did not prepare Africans for self-
democratic rule, Mkapa said.

3) Elections are the sole indicator of a thriving democracy

Global Development - The Guardian How do you solve half a century of

bloodshed in Colombia? podcast

After the civil war that claimed 250,000 lives ended with last years accord, Lucy Lamble
investigates how Colombias communities plan to build lasting peace

Listen

Often the first things people point to as proof of democracy, elections are a precursor rather than
the sole signifier of democratic rule.

When asked whether elections were giving democracy a bad name, former UN secretary general
Kofi Annan said: Democracy is not just about one day every four or five years when elections
are held, but a system of government that respects the separation of powers, fundamental
freedoms like the freedom of thought, religion, expression, association and assembly and the rule
of law Any regime that rides roughshod on these principles loses its democratic legitimacy,
regardless of whether it initially won an election.
The Ibrahim index of African governance, an annual assessment produced by the Mo Ibrahim
Foundation, focuses on what happens between elections. It defines good governance as safety
and rule of law, participation by citizens and a respect for human rights, sustainable economic
opportunity, and human development.

Topping the 2015 index were Mauritius, Cape Verde and Botswana. Central African Republic,
South Sudan and Somalia all nations torn by conflict were bottom.

State of democracy

Score in the 2015 Ibrahim index of African governance

020406080100No data

Guardian graphic | Source: Mo Ibrahim Foundation

4) High voter turnout means corruption

A common perception is that high turnouts indicate fraud or ballot box stuffing. The reality is
complex.

A reported 89% of Rwandas voting population cast ballots in the most recent election in 2013.
The party of President Paul Kagame, who has held his position for 16 years, won 93% of the
vote. Was this a sign of a country freely giving a vote of approval to a popular leader, or a sign of
coercion?

It is worth bearing in mind that 25 sub-Saharan African countries recorded voter turnouts of
more than 50% at their last election, including in those widely viewed as democratic such as in
Sierra Leone (88%), and Ghana (82%).

Its easy to judge turnout by western standards of voter apathy turnout in the UKs general
election in 2015 was 66%; in the US, turnout is usually even lower, at 54% in 2012. Yet younger
democracies often have higher levels of political engagement, with citizens queueing for hours to
make sure their votes count.
Presidential election turnout

Percentage of voting age population

020406080100No data

Guardian graphic | Source: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance

5) The passing of power is often violent

When voters believe there has been election fraud, the risk of violence is high. In some cases the
violence is initiated by incumbent leaders who feel threatened by opponents and incite protests,
further destabilising their countries. Recent cases of electoral violence include Kenyas 2007
election which left 1,133 people dead, 600,000 people displaced and involved a wave of sexual
violence, as well in Sierra Leone in 2007 and Senegal in 2012.

Violence can also be triggered when the opposition feel cheated at the ballot box, either because
of fraud, coercion and intimidation. When citizens feel the judiciary will back the incumbent
elite, they may be more inclined to take their protests to the streets. Other options exist elsewhere
the 2000 US election ended up in the courts after allegations of a miscount.

While the elections in Africa that garner the most international attention are often those that turn
violent, many more are peaceful. Voters in Central African Republic went to the polls in
February hoping to end years of conflict, and the presidential run-off took place
peacefully despite months of sectarian and ethnic violence, albeit with a lower turnout.

This article was corrected on 29 February 2016. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf became president
in 2006, not 2011.

Since youre here

weve got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far
fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many
news organisations, we havent put up a paywall we want to keep our journalism as open as we
can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardians independent, investigative
journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe
our perspective matters because it might well be your perspective, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much
more secure.

Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development

Dictatorship does not necessarily result in development, defined by human well-being(which

incorporates education, health, income, and safety from internal and external threats)and even by
personal discipline. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence proving that either dictatorship
nor democracy cause development. Nonetheless, we will prove dictatorships incorporate more
control over the variables that define development so in consequence are a better course to get to
it. Also, that dictatorships guarantee the Social Order, which is a very necessary prerequisite for
any kind of economic accumulation process to be feasible. A form of government in which
absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique, dictatorships are subject to
retaliatory actions. We propose this should end.
Democratic nations should not take retaliatory actions against dictatorial governments in order to
diminish their legitimacy, their power, and to promote their overthrown in exchange for a
democratic alternative. This actions account for the diminishing of economic & diplomatic
relations with Burma and Iran and the cut of economic aid to Honduras de facto Government.
We will prove that these sort of actions can only undermine the possibility of development
finally kicking in this countries, since dictatorship is the best way to achieve it.