One-size-fits-all therapy is a utopia for achieving democratic governance
The term “Democracy” is often interpreted as the “Rule of the People, by the People, and for the People”. Therefore, democratic governance has to embrace such issues as popular participation, protection of personal freedom, accountability and fairness. This understanding cannot be contested by any serious thinking. However, in its application, the concept of “democracy” becomes highly contestable, given the wide diversity existing in different countries, regions and continents. In short, the world is not homogeneous. This being the case, the applicability of democratic governance has to be adapted to these varying circumstances. In this regard, it is not a surprise that we talk of western democracy, eastern democracy and even African democracy, among others, for good and objective reasons as presented hereunder.
First and foremost, there is no country in the world that has the same historical background with another country, even if they are immediate neighbours. Likewise, no country shares the same culture with another country, even if their peoples speak the same language. Furthermore, the economic and social development trajectories of different countries do differ.
Logically, the political systems that evolve from historical backgrounds and cultures must vary accordingly. Although some commonalities cum convergence might exist because of interactions among different cultures, the core rock of those cultures would not be eroded. Indeed, globalization has promoted such convergences, but differences still exist. For example, a Chinese man by acquiring an American passport becomes a citizen of the USA, but his preference for visiting Chinese restaurants to enjoy the Chinese cuisine would remain unchanged.
The emphasis on diversity is a clear indication that one cannot and should not impose western democracy on other countries because the contexts are entirely different. In fact, such an imposition is doomed to failure. Evidence can be found in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, among others, where the imposition of western democracy has led to endless wars, political chaos and massive loss of people’s lives.
Furthermore, the imposition of western democracy in Africa, in terms of multi-partism, has led to the establishment of a number of political parties, in some cases more than ten parties in one country, based on tribal backgrounds and without having a clearly stipulated development agenda. In such circumstances, they have not only endangered peace and tranquillity, but promoted selfishness by embracing and serving the interests of their families and their close associates to the detriment of socio-economic development of the country. Indeed, the multiplicity of political parties undermines the very principles of nation-building and pan- Africanism which underpinned Africa’s struggle for political independence in the 1950s and 60s.
Another area of contention is that of practicing personal freedom in varying geographic and social contexts. It is true that personal freedom is a basic human right. But there is nothing like complete or borderless freedom. Freedom has to be guided by institutional and legal frameworks, coupled with attendant regulations, as well as by the circumstances prevailing at that particular moment in time. For example, personal freedom may be constraint by either wars or pandemics or both. One needs to recall that, the public demand for complete, immediate and untrammelled personal freedom in the USA, during the ongoing pandemic, has resulted in relatively high death rates in that country. This shows clearly that in demanding cum practising personal freedom, countries should avoid emulating the American way, which is characterized by self-centeredness, short-sightedness and irresponsibility. Indeed, the adoption of a variety of measures by a number of countries, including the USA, to prevent the infections and transmission of Covid-19 should not have been taken as encroachment on personal freedom, but as necessary public health lifesaving actions.
While keeping the above precautions in mind, the operationalization of the concept of democratic governance in the African context demands that the leadership, in consultation with the people, should, first and foremost, identify the daunting challenges in the continent, which have delayed Africa’s socio-economic development when compared to its peers in Asia, including China. These challenges are basically three: poverty, inferior education and the weak public health system. This being the case, any political system which is seriously committed to addressing these challenges, and whereby the rulers and the ruled are constantly in consultation with each other, through clearly stipulated and effective accountability frameworks, should be considered as democratic. Therefore, pointing the finger at other countries with regard to deficiencies in democracy or civic liberties is uncalled for. It thus requires an in-depth analysis of the existing situations or circumstances, rather than a subjective comparison with other countries.
The access to adequate food, decent housing, clothing, quality education and health services are basic human rights. They lay a solid foundation for the promotion of personal freedom. There is no democratic medicine that can cure all sicknesses of the world’s political systems. Therefore, one-size-fits- all therapy is a utopia in this highly diversified world.
