Democracy for development; development for democracy!
Popular support for democracy is as strong around the globe as it has ever been. But those who invest their hopes and political commitment in democracy do not aim just at free and fair elections: they aspire to a more dignified and more rewarding life. The major challenge for democracy today is to deliver on its many promises.
International IDEA and the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) - a premier institution of India in the field of social sciences and humanities - jointly took forward the challenging debate on the inter-linkages between democracy and development.
The two-day “Democracy Round Table 2008: Democracy and Development” held in New Delhi, India from 17-18 June 2008, brought together eminent policymakers, academics, researchers, social activists and experts from around the globe. They discussed democracy in the world from the perspective of its delivery; they questioned, from a democratic point of view, the application of some well-known developmental concepts such as those of national ownership or accountability; they critically re-visited the infinitely complex phenomenon of globalization and offered new examples of its multiple and sometimes contradictory effects.
Participants included Rajeev Bhargava, Director of CSDS, Jairam Ramesh Indian Minister of State of Commerce and Industry and Power, Peter deSouza, Director of the Indian Institute for Advanced Study, Pranab Bardhan from the University of California, Larry Diamond from Stanford University, Gloria Somolekae from WK Kellogg Foundation, Botswana, Maria-Amparo Casar from the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico, Aruna Roy, social activist from India, Javeed Alam, Chairman of the Indian Council of Social Science Research, William BM Brandful, Senior diplomat from Ghana, François-Xavier de Donnea, MP from Belgium, Saskia Sassen of Columbia University and London School of Economics and Political Science, Ravi Shrivastava from the JNU University, Delhi, Najam Sethi, a renowned Pakistani journalist, Jorge Heine, political scientist from Chile and Vice-President of the International Political Science Association (IPSA), Nivedita Menon from Delhi University and International IDEA’s Secretary-General Vidar Helgesen.
In the inaugural session, Vidar Helgesen stressed that International IDEA’s own work in support of democracy provided ample evidence about institutions rapidly loosing popular trust when monopolized by self-complacent elites and isolated from social realities. He said that stepping up international efforts to reduce poverty would be a major contribution to democracy today, though democracy doesn’t follow from economic development alone. He highlighted the role of new players on the world stage and insisted on getting rid of harmful and outdated ideas about the North being a provider of democracy to the South. Rich pools of experience and knowledge in democracy building exist in the global South and remain to be mobilized though South-South cooperation. “No country can donate democracy and no country can receive it from abroad”, Helgesen stated. “No external actor can replace the citizens as builders and ultimate beneficiaries of democracy”.
Rajeev Bhargava stressed the need for pluralistic approaches to development. His main points were that development must be owned by the people: specialists and technocrats have a major role to play but cannot hijack the process. He also pointed at the necessary ethical dimension of development: “Development must be ethically sensitive - it must be grounded in moral principles and social values.”
In the same session, the Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry and Power, Jairam Ramesh, spoke about “the three Rs” - Representation, Responsiveness and Responsibility. According to him, all three are a must for development in a democratic system. For India, in view of its infinite social and cultural diversity, democracy was the only viable system of governance. Looking to the future he pointed to a number of key challenges for democracy in India: to continue the move away from what he dubbed ‘unicentric’ to ‘polycentric’ democratic practice i.e. one in which the existing three-tier governance structure (Union-State-Panchayats) function efficiently in practice; to move from an inward towards an outward-looking economy that encompasses both a greater recognition of the balance to be struck between public control and private initiative, and a redefinition of the state’s role as “empowerer” and protector of the poor; to respond adequately to new and emerging identity-based formations (local/regional/ethnic/ linguistic) within Indian society that are making new claims on Indian democracy.
Panel 1: “Development - An Ideal? An electoral slogan? A sine qua non of democracy?”
Peter deSouza, as panel moderator, highlighted the “emergence of a global super-elite”, a “new class of people (which Davos symbolizes) who are not focused on national policies and whose rise represents a big challenge to democracy because of the diminishment of national/domestic debates”. He suggested that the global architecture of decision-making needs to change in order to become more democratic and inclusive - he referred to global trade and the World Trade Organization (WTO), global politics and the UN, global development finance as managed by the World Bank etc. “Broad-based, fair and humanistic development is the unfinished project of democracy”, he said.
Pranab Bardhan said that the relationship between democracy and development was complex and had to be seen in conjunction with many other factors. He illustrated ways in which democracy could help development such as through the building of checks and balances inside the system, which helps avoiding mistakes and improving the management of conflict.
Maria Amparo Casar said there was no need to choose between democracy and development as both need to go hand in hand. Strengthening the executive and making it more accountable are equally important. Initially, she said, referring to her country, there were no restraints on the Mexican President as holder of the executive power; but today the President’s powers are significantly restrained and there are tools in the system to hold him accountable.
Larry Diamond spoke about the ambiguous relationship between democracy and development: on the one hand, there is a strong democracy/development relationship at the upper end, with almost all of the top-50 highly industrialized countries (except Singapore) being democracies; on the other hand, more than 1/3 of the 100 lowest income countries are also practicing democracies. Thus, the democracy/development link is not universal. His other point was that while there has been a dramatic increase in the number of electoral democracies in the world in recent decades, there has also been a parallel decline in people’s trust in democracy as a means of good governance. As reasons for this “democratic roll-back”, he cited rising inequality, endemic corruption, weak rule of law, poor economic performance, ethnic and religious divisions, week and inefficient parties and parliaments and weak checks and balances. “The rules and institutions required to nurture democracy and development are the same”, he said.
Gloria Somolekae argued that the major reason for the lack of development of many democracies is a lack of resources and not political conditions. She stressed the need to reach out to civil society and to develop tools that would ensure input from the people.
Panel 2: Room for politics - Democratizing national ownership of development
WM Brandful compared his country, Ghana, with Malaysia. In 1957, he noted, both countries were broadly comparable, but a few decades later Malaysia’s GDP grew markedly more than Ghana’s. Ghana had many setbacks on its road to democracy, but nevertheless it had four successful elections. With stable democracy came stable development and growth. Poverty dropped from 52 per cent to 37 per cent of the population, and now Ghana is projected to fulfill the Millennium Development Goals. Brandful concluded that Africa cannot develop without democracy, and democracy cannot be sustained without development.
Francois-Xavier de Donnea, said that a strong parliament was the key to a stronger democracy. In his view the parliament can be strengthened with improved parliamentary oversight mechanisms, by adequately resourcing it, by engaging with civil society, and by ensuring that the opposition can play its role.
Aruna Roy, argued that listening to the people, ensuring transparency in institutions and giving the power to local bodies were the keys to a strong democracy. She recounted her experiences in fighting for transparency in India - and how the India’s Right to Information Act has been a big step in fighting corruption which remains one of the biggest impediments to democracy and development. “We do not need intellectuals to run democracy - we need common sense, ethics and empathy”, she said.
Ravi Shrivastava, quoting Amartya Sen, emphasized that development can, and should, be viewed as an extension of basic human rights and freedoms. He insisted on the need to expand the scope of political democracy so as to balance it with a corresponding increase in economic democracy.
Panel 3: The Impact of Globalization on democracy and development
Saskia Sassen noted the inherent problems of globalization (”the world is not flat but lumpy…”), especially how much of what we call globalization is actually ‘supra-national’, i.e. decisions, events and developments are negotiated entirely by nation states (or more precisely, the executive arm of government) rather than shaped or negotiated by individual citizens of the world. She drew attention to cross-border immigration as an under-reported but hugely important aspect of globalization, and how this flow of people and money is shaping national responses. “The global corporate economy has strengthened the executive arm of governments and weakened national and state legislature”, she argued. “Every migrant represents a story of unsettlement.”
Nivedita Menon emphasized the need for a critical re-definition of the concept of development. She asserted: “Environment trumps people and development trumps environment.” She said that globalization has an immense effect on environment, which in turn hinders growth in the long run.
Najam Sethi drew a comprehensive and incisive picture of the state of politics in Pakistan, and how it is a case study in global jihad v/s global capitalism. He spoke about the peculiar and dangerous path of Pakistan’s emerging democracy under the double constraints of terrorism and the so called “war on terror” - both phenomena being, in a way, specific ill effects of globalization.
Jorge Heine was rather positive about the state of democracy in the world, with special reference to Latin America where, he noted, there has been a democratic resurgence in the last ten years. He also believes that the modern age of democracy started in 1980, which is when both the PC and CNN - as proxies for the information society - came into being.
Pranab Bhardan, speaking as moderator of this last session of the Round Table, presented an original and provocative view on the state of democracy and the impact of globalization - and he countered some sweeping generalizations in current public discourse. He specifically mentioned the “myth that globalization has increased inequality”, which he said, was not universally true - in fact, countries like Mexico and Brazil have seen sharp decrease in income inequality.
Offering his concluding remarks, International IDEA Secretary-General Vidar Helgesen said that globalization offered a mixed picture of positive and negative effects on both democracy and development. The debate showed how globalization could contribute, in different circumstances, to both increasing and reducing inequalities. On the one hand, globalization has made some supra-national institutions and processes more powerful, on the other, it has enhanced the capacity of citizens to influence global norms and standards and to bring about new concepts such as those of “human security” and “the responsibility to protect”.
Helgesen further spoke of the need to re-define development assistance and democracy support. The latter, he said, increasingly focuses on the quality of democracy and its deliverables.
While some democratic experiences suffer from a number of persistent problems such as corruption, clientelism, the use of the state to promote networks of patronage, populist mobilizations on ethnic issues - as opposed to the use of the deliberative potentials of democracy, there are also new and creative experiments such as the institutionalization of the right to information, participatory budgeting and so forth.
“The key issue for all those engaged in development assistance and democracy support is to understand the deeply political nature of both processes”, he concluded. “International IDEA will take the richness of the Round Table debate home and look at how it can benefit its programmatic work and its knowledge base.”
Highlights from the Democracy Round Table 2008
Posted: 2008-06-25
www.idea.int
