Explain_the_Significance_of_Democratisation_to_Challenges_of_Development_That_Have_Been_Reised_in_the_Course_so_Far.

A)Explain the significance of democratisation to challenges of development that have been raised in the course so far. It is widely accepted that a liberal democracy is a desirable political model particularly since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Democracy is a state of being and democratization is a transition en route to that state. But how the process by which this change to democracy occurs is much debated in all spheres. The french political historian Alexi Detocqueville noted that a regime is at its most vulnerable when it is trying to change, and therefore many countries have seen the adoption of democracy fail and end in military coups or civil war, and have had to suffer years of an authoritarian dictatorship instead. For instance the 1973 military coup which overthrew the democratically elected Allende in favour of or Pinochet or the military coup of 1980 in Turkey led by the grey wolves and General Evren. The process by which a democracy becomes legitimate and institutionalized are through the development of trust and tolerance. The transition does not always run smoothly. It is a process of complete transformation; of cumulative social change and development which redraws the social contact between people government and state. Development is inextricably bound to the institution of democracy. David Potter poses the question,’ Does democratization stimulate development'’(Potter p382) He maintains it doesn’t; at least not necessarily. But this depends on the definition and measurement of development. If development is solely measured by GDP per capita then the answer is probably not; not in the short term. But if we look at development in its broadest terms or adopt Sen’s view as development as freedom, then the evidence is more compelling. Potter (op cit) also asserts that ‘severe economic underdevelopment, as in many parts of sub-saharan africa, has not been a promising context for development’. There is no doubt that illiteracy and lack of education pose a challenge to democratization and development. But that does not prove that ‘focussing on democracy and political liberty is a luxury that a poor country “cannot afford” ‘(Sen, p147). Policymakers must (or should) seek to judge which is more urgent, removing poverty or installing civil liberties such as are guaranteed through democratization. This is a well trodden argument which still occupies the rhetoric of many aid agencies including UNDP. However the current UNDP administration has made its position clear on this matter where Afghanistan is concerned and this may set a precedent for future development. It supported the Bonn agreement, so setting democratisation as crucial to Afghanistan’s development. UNDP also sought to bridge the gaps in Afghanistan’s short and long term development needs whilst the necessary processes which would enable democratization were put in place. It was widely accepted that any development was extremely unlikely to be sustained whilst the threat of a re-emergence of a Taliban led authority remained. Unfortunately the issue is of democratization in underdeveloped countries throws up many challenges as Easterly (2006) points out. ‘A big problem with democracy and development, particularly with uneducated voters is that the politicians could appeal to voters’ gut instinct of hatred, fear, nationalism, or racism to win elections”. However this is not a substantial enough argument to withhold democracy from people. As recently as 2000 the European parliament blocked Austria’s elected ‘Freedom Party’ headed by Joerg Haider into a coalition government. Austria had been a democracy since 1945. Its people were highly educated and had been deemed capable of exercising political choice for two generations. Yet the European Parliament decided that the Austrian people’s choice was so ‘insulting unethical and xenophobic’ that it would not recognise it. For many, this called into serious question whether the European Union itself had fully grasped the concept of democracy. But the vote itself suggested that the undereducated do not have a monopoly on voting for a racists, though they may be more vulnerable to coercion. Most would argue that it would be immoral to make the level of people’s education a precondition to establishing democracy. Sen, whose analysis permeates new development thinking views democracy as a major source of social opportunity and freedom. Sen 1999 (p158) This freedom is of paramount importance in India where famine has been a chronic problem. The challenge of how to deal with it effectively has in part been addressed by a free press and media have a ‘leading role’ (Dreze and Sen, 1989) in famine prevention. Governmental response to its poorest people often depends on the pressure that government is put under by its people. Since Independence it is no longer possible for an Indian government to ignore the threat of famine, at least not without major political risk. This is where the political vote or demonstration becomes integral to making the difference between life and death for its poorest people. Though making the fact of famine and threat known the press has forced local states and government to put in place a system of famine prevention. ‘The affected population themselves have a much greater ability than in past to make their demands felt and to galvanize the authorities into action (especially in view of the importance of winning the rural vote). This is one positive aspect of Indian democracy.’ (Dreze & Sen 1989 ). But famine is not the only challenge, as Potter (op cit) states, ‘It is also important to appreciate that groups and associations in civil society can be hostile to democratization’. The data in table 17.2 clearly shows a dramatic political change throughout the world during the last 20 years from authoritarian to liberal or partial democracies, with the notable exception of the Middle East. In the West, the concept of individualism permeates politics as it does economics. J.F. Kennedy promised to ‘bear any burden, pay any price’ to defend liberty. Arabs by contrast tend to identify themselves as part of a family, a tribe and in most cases the Islamic ‘Umma’ or nation. Arab culture places more importance on Islam than on the Wests democratic ideals of freedom. Their highest value is ‘Al Kheir’, which translates roughly as ‘charity’ or ‘virtue’, and to which personal choice or freedom to do as one pleases should be subordinated. It brings benefits such as social cohesion, low crime rates and lowdrug and alcohol abuse. But it does produce brittle political systems -turbulent monarchies and quasi monarchical republics like Syria and Lebanon. Iran is a sober reminder of the depth of feeling religion stirs in this region. The deposition of the Shah and the subsequent instatement of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 surprised many Iranians as much as it did the West. The Shiite uprising was a response to the Shah’s vision and enterprise of modernization. ‘Many viewed Khomeini as no more than a useful figurehead, and would never have supported him had they recognized his ambitions and his capacity to achieve them. In retrospect it seems there were a lot of people with heir heads in the sand.’(OU course book p449). But as Wilson and Heeks point out (op cit p466) it is too trite to see cultural explanations such as ‘closed social systems’ as the sole hindrances to development. Development of poor countries by Western democracies seems impossible, or unsustainable, without democracy. But countries like the GCC nations have grown rich, and develop themselves. This is a different model of development, and one with which Western policy makers and populations are instinctively uncomfortable. 1223 words for section A including citations B) Democratization is a path to liberty and freedom, but it is particularly liberating for women, who have traditionally lost out in the development process. Within development policy making there has been a focus on gender issues relating particularly to poor women. The move from women in development (WID) approach to the more all inclusive Gender and Development (GAD) as not addressed the issues which affect middle eastern women and in particular women of Saudi Arabia. If poverty is a prerequisite to development policy making then these women will continue to lose out. The question, in which Saudi Arabia is a case study, is whether development without democracy is enough. In 2010 the Saudi state defined over 80% of families as poor, but only 1.63 % were in poverty by the MDG definition (UNDP 2005 figures) . Female participation in the workforce tripled between 1992 and 2006, though only to 15%. Female access to education led to increased opportunities in the workforce. But the system which keeps them legally and socially subjugated to men remains in place. There may be a Lexus parked next to the Olive Tree, but it won’t be a woman driving it away. It is a system which requires women to be kept covered and separate from men to whom they are not related. They cannot drive, they cannot have medical treatment without male permission, ‘..women in highly male-dominated societies may feel vulnerable without traditional male protection and so be reluctant to try and reduce their subordination.’ (p60 poverty and inequality.) This is an argument put forward by women themselves in Saudi. ‘Some Saudi Women say they appreciate the protection they are given-they do not feel it denies them their rights in any significant way’(BBC Sebastian Usher). However one cannot know what one is missing unless one has direct experience of it. Women there rarely understand the depth of their own subjugation. What is deemed ‘normal’ in Saudi Arabia is completely ‘abnormal’ to western society. ‘The power of ideologies or beliefs can rule out a of consideration a raft of possibilities for action by rendering such possibilities’ as unthinkable or abnormal in the the context of powerful ideology.’ (p216 introducing development) In other words, unless one has a taste of freedom and is allowed to have direct experience of an alternative it is difficult to quantify to what extent one is losing out. Development policies aimed at women here are regarded by the religious authorities as subversive. This presents Western policy makers and development planners with a dilemma. Saudi has money (and again according to the UNDP spends nearly 6% of it on foreign aid) and has what those development planners seek to build in other parts of the world - access to food and education. But the Saudi version of development is far from the Western model. A cynic might conclude that so long as Saudi has so much of the world’s oil reserves, those policymakers will be in no hurry to resolve this dilemma. 491 words for section b Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen 1999 Poverty and development into the 21st century 1992, OU course book The White Man’s Burden, William Easterly 2006 UNDP Democritization and Civil Society Empowerment Program : http://www.undp.org.af/Publications/KeyDocuments/factsheets/dcse/dcse_factsheet_01_10_04.pdf Saudi women, (Human rights watch):http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8142940.stm Sebastian Usher Arab affairs correspondent. Poverty and Inequality, OU course book; 2001 UNDP Saudi Arabia stats:http://www.undp.org.sa/sa/