|
|
Is Democracy the Engine of
Economic Growth?
Prof. Bedford N. Umez, Ph.D.*
One of the arguments that is often made to explain problems
of development in authoritarian regimes (such as the present day
Nigeria and some other African nations) is the one that blames
development problems on lack of democracy. The essence of this
argument (referred here as democracy-leads-to-economic growth
perspective) is that lack of democracy is the major cause of the
problems of development in Nigeria. Before considering this
argument, let me first define democracy.
In this context, I shall use the word "democracy" to mean a
statement about sovereignty and nothing else. This, I believe, is
the proper use. Sovereignty can reside in one person, a selected
few (as we have seen time and time again in many African
countries, especially in Nigeria), or the whole adult population.
Sovereignty in the adult population is established and nurtured
when a representative government permits and maintains certain
basic principles; only then can such be properly and assertively
called a "democracy." These principles are (a) universal political
participation, (b) political equality, (c) majority rule (with
substantive recognition of the minority rights), (d) rule of law,
(e) government responsiveness to the public opinion, and, of
course, (f) the basic freedoms of speech, press, assembly,
religion, and organization.1
The Issues and Implications
According to democracy-leads-to-economic growth perspective,
Nigeria should establish democracy first in order to achieve
economic growth because the military is not equipped to play a
developmental role in the economic sphere. Perhaps the best known
version of this perspective is presented by Alexander Madiebo. He
states:
A military government is a major set back for any nation and
should be avoided at all costs. This is because military men are
unqualified for the task of government and either lean too heavily
on advice which may not always be in the best interest of their
people or, worse still, attempt to rule without it.2
Henry Bienen and Eric Nordlinger argue that the militaries are
akin to interest groups; as such, they are more concerned with the
advancement of their own corporate interests (e.g., military
autonomy, salaries, and arms procurement) even when such interests
are clearly at odds with those of the larger society.3 Thus, the
military will be more apt to increase its own budget and
proportionately reduce the budget allocated to civilian and
non-defense projects.4 Samuel Decalo argues that militaries are
hardly organizations. Rather, some factions of the military are
self-interested players of a Hobbesian political environment,
preoccupied with their own selfish aggrandizement which tend to
retard economic growth.5
Within Nigeria, there are additional (though related) reasons why
many Nigerians (in particular) are presently clamoring for
democracy -- the return of the civilian government. First, is the
ascendancy of the Nigerian military in governance and the present
economic decline in Nigeria. It is an indisputable fact that
Nigerian economy has been declining,6 and that Nigeria is one of
the most coup prone nations in Africa.7 In fact, military
intervention has become an integral part of the electoral cycle in
Nigeria that in thirty-eight years, from the time of independence
(1960) to the present (1998), the military has ruled Nigeria for
twenty-eight of those years.
While it is beyond the confines of this book to provide a
comprehensive of the various studies which outline the differences
between military and civilian governments, it is instructive that
some of the attributes assigned to the military, e.g., pursuit of
narrow interests, apply equally to the civilian leaders. This
point is exemplified by the pursuit of their own interest.
Clearly, self-interest may be at odds with what serves the
collective good. To that extent, neither the military nor a
civilian government in Nigeria would assure development. Thus, the
underlying question in this chapter: is democracy a precondition
for economic growth?
It is clear that a democratic process is preferable to a military
rule. Compared to a military rule, democratic principles, when
enforced, provide a more stable environment for investments, and
therefore likely to promote economic growth. It is common
knowledge that business investors are usually reluctant to invest
in a polity in which coups and counter coups remain the means of
changing governmental personnel. Indeed, progressive economic
performance is better assured with a democratically elected
civilian leadership than within the military.
In addition, democracy provides periodic elections that allow
people to change (and control) their government personnel (and in
some cases, government policies through referenda). Accordingly,
elected officials are presumed to respond to the public opinion or
risk rejection at the poll. The assumed relationship between
democratically elected leaders and the citizens is based on
reciprocity.
Military rule, on the other hand, does not provide direct
mechanisms that allow the people to control the military personnel
or its policies. In fact, in a military rule, the question becomes
who will police the military? Above all, the record of the
military regime in terms of civil rights leaves a lot to be
desired because most authoritarian regimes do not tolerate
opposition, and therefore do not guarantee civil liberties.
Notwithstanding the positive virtues of a democratic government
(which, in principle, makes democracy far better than a military
rule), I maintain that democracy is not self-executing, and
therefore, does not automatically lead to economic growth. While
the democratic process (hence, the principles of democracy) better
guarantees performance for the people, one must be reminded that
Nigeria has miserably failed in at least two attempts at
democracy, 1960-1966 and 1979-1983. The first civilian government
(1960-1966) did not keep Nigeria one. The last republic
(1979-1983) was known to be generally corrupt.9
Corruption destroys any economy because instead of serving the
people, corrupt officials start serving their own narrow selfish
interests (thereby creating a government of the few, by the few,
for the few). Just as some people are skeptical about investing in
a country ruled by the military, some prefer not to invest in a
nation mired in corruption. Nigerian leaders and the elite must
rise above corruption; they must obey the laws of the land; they
must have consideration for their fellow Nigerians; they must be
democratic at heart; they must be selfless, honest and committed
to better serve the interest of the country at large; and they
must be truly patriotic. And when this is done, a sound economy
will be established, and democracy will be maintained, and
preserved.
Often, I compare democracy with Rose Royce, and a corrupt official
with one who does not know how to drive a car but nonetheless
wants to drive, Mr. "I Too Know" (ITK). Rose Royce is generally
believed to be one of the best cars, built to last for a long
time. However, if Mr. ITK (who does not know how to drive a car)
is entrusted with driving this Rose Royce, this nice car might be
wrecked in a matter of seconds. Conversely, if we entrust this
Rose Royce with a good driver, the life of this car and its beauty
are likely to be extended and preserved, ceteris paribus.
Just as Rose Royce is believed to be one of the best cars,
democracy is believed to be the best form of government primarily
because its principles are geared toward serving the interest of
the larger public, hence, government of the people by the people.
However, if corrupt, selfish, inconsiderate, and mindless
officials are elected in a democracy, they will destroy the
economy and democracy itself (just as Mr. ITK will destroy the
Rose Royce), democratic principles and good laws notwithstanding.
It is obvious that corrupt officials do not obey the laws and
democratic principles; and, as we know, the real essence of any
law lies in its implementation. If laws and democratic principles
are only partially observed or totally ignored, what then is left
of democracy? Frankly, nothing desirable!
Since that is the case, one is therefore compelled to ask these
fundamental questions: Why did these two civilian regimes
(particularly, the last one) fail in the first place?
Specifically, is lack of democracy in Nigeria the ROOT of:
i. the prevailing value system "of he who no dey fast, na him go
board last mentality" that encourages and endorses corrupt
practices as necessary, and sufficient means to ends?
ii. the reason why some (if not most) Governors and their
accomplices in the last democratic government (1979-1983) buried
thousands of public funds (Naira, Pounds, and Dollars) in their
private homes for private use10 (while Nigerians teachers, and
civil servants went on for months without pay)?
iii. the reason why some public officials in Nigeria -- military
and civilian officials alike – callously embezzle public funds and
send them to their private bank accounts in foreign countries11 –
the countries that either directly or indirectly enslaved,
colonized, exploited, and marginalized Nigeria, and many other
African countries?
iv. a flagrant disobedience to laws at almost all levels of
government solely for the quest for illegal, and ill-gotten money?
v. ethnocentrism and its unhealthy inter-ethnic rivalries?
vi. intra-ethnic bigotry, evidenced in a feeling of some
superiority of certain section(s) of the same ethnic group over
others?
vii. extravagant display of wealth, punctuated with lavish parties
that often entail blockade of roads used for the normal businesses
in Nigerian big cities?
viii. arrogance, evidenced in title mania, with its associated
class consciousness, and class antagonisms?
If we ignore questions like these, we shall allow the name of
democracy, or the search for it, to serve as a cloak for every
kind of abomination and folly, short-sighted policies, blatant
tyranny, incompetent bureaucracy, sheer greed, avarice, and social
oppression in Nigeria.
Let me address, at this juncture, another point about the
relationship between democracy and economic growth. It has been
argued that lack of democracy in Nigeria is the cause of the
problems of development because the civilian governments have not
enjoyed the length of time as the military; as such democracy did
not have the opportunity to thrive.
There is no doubt that the military has been in power for over 71
percent of the time in Nigeria. However, did not civilian leaders
actually have the opportunity to sow the seeds of progress but
failed to do so? Specifically, how do we explain some cases of
corruption and embezzlement of public funds within the past
civilian government? Or have Nigerians forgotten the rampant
corruption within the last republic?
Besides, if the Nigerian elite truly believe that military must
go, how can one explain the nomination of the late Gen. Sani
Abacha by the then five political parties (April 20, 1998) as the
only qualified presidential candidate for the scheduled August 1,
1998 presidential election? Put differently, if we buy the
argument that Nigerians are tired of the military government, and
believe that military is the major problem and therefore must
leave Nigerian politics, what then prompted these parties to
select Gen. Abacha, the then incumbent military leader, as the
only qualified presidential candidate? Common sense tells one that
if these parties really wanted military out of the Nigerian
politics, they could have not nominated Abacha, a military man, to
be the only sole presidential candidate for the scheduled August
1, 1998 presidential election. Those in my camp understand that
mere change of dress, from the military [khaki] uniform to the
traditional civilian "Agbada" dress cannot significantly alter
someone's character.
But even if one accepts the theory that mere change of dress can
substantially alter one's character, one is still troubled by the
idea of selecting one man to be the only qualified presidential
candidate in a nation of over 100 million. Democratic theory, as
we know, presupposes, among others, that any qualified citizen can
run and be voted for by the people, and whoever gets majority
votes wins. Further, it suggests, in the interest of legitimacy,
that there should be choices of candidates from which people
choose. But to these parties, the right of the people to choose
among five competing presidential candidates is not a part of
their own defined democracy.
Related to the choice factor, is the obvious fact that one-man
presidential race does not (and cannot) offer any room for
presidential debates. It is palpably clear that there are serious
issues confronting Nigeria. As such, serious debates and
discussions (among and between competing groups) to address those
issues are of considerable importance. But how can Nigerians hold
genuine presidential debates on those relevant national issues if
and when one man becomes the only presidential candidate? In light
of the fact that no man holds a debate against himself, one-man
presidential race (no mater the candidate and his/her attributes)
is incapable of adequately addressing relevant divisive issues
confronting Nigeria. Presidential debates on relevant national
issues are paramount in a society of diverse groups and diverse
interests (as in Nigeria) because two [thinking] heads are far
better than one.
To further demonstrate that lack of "democracy" is not the major
problem facing Nigeria, let us examine the request these parties
made to Abacha’s successor, Gen. Abdulsalam Abubakar (June 17,
1998). On June 17, 1998, these same political parties that
selected "King Solomon" Abacha as the only presidential candidate,
appealed to Gen. Abubakar to end Nigeria’s tradition of military
meddling in politics, cancel the results of all local and regional
elections held under Abacha's reign, and extend Abacha's political
transition to civilian rule for three to 12 months in order to
"seek credibility" for the transition program.12 Tacitly, they
admitted that Abacha’s transition program was a sham.
Notice that yesterday (call it the period before the death of
Abacha), it was all perfect and dandy for them to nominate one
man, Abacha (in a nation of over 100 million people) as the ONLY
qualified person to rule Nigeria. At that time, Abacha was
"credible" and the transition program was superb. As such, Abacha
was the one, and so Nigeria should not be looking for another. Had
it been that Abacha lived, accepted their offer, and became the
civilian president of Nigeria under "democracy," no one would
know, at least from them, that the whole democratic transition
program lack "credibility." But when nature exposed their
"infinite wisdom" in nominating "King Solomon" as the only
qualified ruler in Nigeria, they started calling for reforms,
cancellation of the previous elections and the postponement of the
date for the hand-over. Is it not ironic that the same people who
nominated Abacha as the "Messiah" of Nigeria accused his
transition program of lacking "credibility" only after his death?
In my view, Nigerians deserve to know what made Abacha’s
transition program lack "credibility" so that credibility will be
assured in Abubakar’s and future transition programs.
Tacitly conceding that the transition program set by Abacha was
flawed, Gen. Abubakar ordered (July 20, 1998) that the electoral
commission created by Abacha be dismantled, regional and local
elections canceled, and the five state-sponsored political parties
dissolved. In addition, he announced that the presidential
elections should be held by February 1999 and that Nigeria should
return to civilian rule in May 1999. According to him, "Nigerians
want nothing less than true democracy in a united and peaceful
country."13
I welcome this announcement, as I have been welcoming all the
announcements to return Nigeria to a democracy. However, some
relevant issues are yet to be addressed. Nigerian government must
take some concrete and specific measures to stop the "fox" from
entering the Nigerian "hen" house. So far as the revolving doors
that keep on bringing corrupt men and women into Nigerian body
politics are not tightly closed, elections after elections,
parties after parties, constitutions after constitutions, and
republics after republics in the name of democracy will continue
to be ineffectual in solving Nigeria’s problems of development
because the major source of the problem (discussed below) is
basically ignored.
The major source of problems in Nigeria, as I view it, is caused
by "ajo mmadu" – the wicked people. "Ajo mmadu" will always
destroy and destroy and destroy. They are sadists who enjoy
inflicting wounds on others while watching them die slowly by the
way side. These "ajo mmadu" are the ones who have kept Nigeria in
this state of economic, political and social mess all this time.
They embezzle public funds with God-forbidden impunity. They cause
scarcity of gasoline in a country that is ranked among the top in
crude oil production. They constantly interfere with the
electricity even in hospitals with patients on life-support
machines. They lie to the people, and often dress themselves in
borrowed robes and fake titles. All these wicked acts are all
motivated by bribery and corruption produced by the value system
of "he who no dey fast, na him go board last." That is where the
major problem lies; it is "ajo mmadu," pure and simple.
Therefore, formation of new parties today and the cancellation of
the previous elections will not matter a bit so far as the "ajo
mmadu" are practicing their sadism in Nigeria. So far as the
revolving doors keep bringing them in, changing dress from khaki
to "agbada," or changing parties, canceling elections, writing and
rewriting the constitutions will NOT solve Nigeria's major
problems of development. In fact, doing these things over and over
often means enriching these people (and those waiting on the wings
to rob the nation when their time comes). After all, there is no
election in Nigeria that is free of alleged fraudulent practices.
These ones conducted last year (1997) were not the first and
neither will they be the last. The most effective solutions to
Nigeria's major problems (including those with the Abacha’s
transition program) lie with the good leaders – those who are
guided by the principles of "charity begins at home," patriotism,
and consideration for others -- the true meaning of democracy.
It is time Nigerians started calling a spade a spade and a garden
fork a garden fork. Democracy cannot thrive in a society where the
rich continue to get richer (at the expense and exploitation of
the masses) and the poor are subjected to perpetual and agonizing
death. The pursuit of democracy, though an excellent idea, must
not lead Nigerians (or other people for that matter) to ignore the
basic engine that establishes, and makes civilization run, namely,
economic growth (brought about by good leaders dedicated to bring
development to their country). Once a nation's well being is
neglected, i.e., once most of the leaders in a democracy start
serving their own interests instead of those of the people, the
regime's legitimacy will be eroded, and democracy will surely die.
In fact, there is an impressive body of empirical evidence
demonstrating that economic crises of various types can trigger
transitions from democratic regime to authoritarian regime.14 The
survivability of a regime (including the democratic regime of the
US, as a matter of fact) depends upon the performance of the
regime itself. A polity cannot provide economic prosperity,
welfare and domestic order -- the overall good living standards --
if the leaders do not care for the common good. In a simple
language, Nigeria will not survive if the leaders typically
subscribe to the prevalent habits of decay in Nigeria that
encourage corrupt practices as necessary and sufficient means to
ends.
Conclusion
To conclude, the basic argument of this paper is quite simple.
Democracy is the best form of government when its principles are
enforced. The military governance is the worst option for the
reasons adumbrated at the beginning of this paper. However, one
must recognize that democracy, just in name, does not stop a
criminal from being a criminal. All we know (about the democratic
process) is that over a period of time, the institutions, the
economic structure, and the whole business of laws, and law-making
will be maintained according to the wishes and desires of the
people. This is only true if all other matters so vital to the
success of a country (e.g., patriotism, commitment, great vision,
investments on the part of the leaders and the elite, and genuine
consideration for others) are taken seriously by those who are
elected in a democracy. Indeed, it is pure illusion to assume that
answers to any society’s problems will be forthcoming by mere
repetition of democracy (as if it were an incantation against the
evils perpetuated by men against men) nor by an authoritarian
military rule (established under the guise of curbing corruption).
Nigeria will continue to experience economic downturn, and
democracy is bound to fail in Nigeria, as it has failed at least
twice, if the [civilian] leaders and the elite fail to provide and
maintain the overall good living standards of the people -- the
welfare of the state.
Therefore, success of a democratic government depends upon the
morally guided and sagacious leaders (and the elite) who are
determined to work for the growth and development of every aspect
of the whole country, be it political development (democracy),
economic development, or good human relations. When this
commitment is demonstrated, there will be economic growth -- the
people will be well fed. And when people are well fed, they are
likely to obey laws, respect the rights of others, accept
conventional means of political participation, and generally
observe the principles and the values of democracy. The maxim that
"a hungry man is an angry man," underscores this point.
Above all, economic prosperity brings other developments that are
conducive for democracy, namely, industrialization, communication,
and most importantly, education which fosters a good understanding
of say the rule of law, and harmonic ethnic relations. These
developments encourage, advance, and sustain democracy, and they
can only come about in a strong economy built and maintained by
TRULY educated Nigerian leaders, i.e., Nigerians with the common
sense to understand that investment at home is the engine of
economic growth. Only these kinds of men and women will say NO to
the prevailing value system that encourages and endorses corrupt
practices in Nigeria. Only these kinds of men and women will say
NO to disobedience to laws, inter-ethnic rivalries, intra-ethnic
conflicts and bigotry, excessive display of wealth, and arrogance.
Only these kinds of men and women will say NO to neglect of true
education, embezzlement of public funds, colonial mentality, and
inferiority complex. Only these men and women will say YES to the
principle of charity begins at home, and not abroad, consequently
encouraging investment in Nigeria, instead of creating greener
pastures abroad.
In sum, democracy (DE), when its principles are religiously
enforced, brings economic growth because more people tend to
invest in a democracy (as explained at the beginning of this
paper). Economic growth (EG), on the other hand, is a sine qua non
for maintaining democracy (DE). However, the preservation of
democracy and maintenance of economic growth are a function (f) of
the good leaders (GLs) who are determined to work for the growth
and development of every aspect of the whole country.
Symbolically, this:
DE <===> GE = f (GLs)
If Nigerians continue to ignore this obvious fact, the next
republic will follow the same failed path of the previous ones,
all things being equal.
Notes
1. See, in particular, Howard Zinn, "How Democratic Is America,"
in Robert E. DiClerico and Allan S. Hammock (ed.), Points of View:
Readings in American Government and Politics,(New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995), 2-13; Janda, et al., The Challenge of
Democracy: Government in America, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1995), 33-37.
2. Alexander A. Madiebo, The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran
War (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers, 1980), 386.
3. Henry Bienen, (ed.) The Military and Modernization,(Chicago:
Aldine, 1971); Eric Nordlinger, "Soldiers in Mufti: The Impact of
Military Rule Upon Economic and Social Change in the Non-Western
States," American Political Science Review, Vol. 64 (1970),
1131-1148. Henry Bienen, Soldiers in Politics: Military Coups and
Governments, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976).
4. Ibid.
5. For details, see Samuel Decalo, Coups and Army Rule in Africa,
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).
6. See, Izevbuwa Osayimwese and Sunday Iyare, "The Economics of
Nigerian Federalism: Selected Issues in Economic Management,"
Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 21 (Fall 1991), 97.
Pat McGowan, and Thomas Johnson, "Six Coups in Thirty Years -
Further Evidence Regarding African Military Coups d'Etat," The
Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 24 (1986), 540-546.
Ladipo Adamolekun, "Introduction: Federalism in Nigeria," Publius:
The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 21 (Fall 1991), 2-3.
See Eric Umeh, "Debt Crisis in Nigeria: Is it Macroeconomic Debtor
Mismanagement
or Imprudent Credit Lending? A Case Study," Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Texas
Woman's University, Denton, Texas, May 1992, 41-42.
10. Ibid.
11. "We at the Citibank had a large account deposited FROM NIGERIA
(my emphasis). When the Nigerian government changed hands in a
military coup, some of the new authorities came to claim the money
of someone in the previous regime. They were NASTY THUGS (emphasis
mine). We called the police, and the police did some checking.
They came back to me the next day and said, 'Mr. Dessauer, you
don't have to worry about these fellows anymore.' We put them on a
plane to Nigeria and told the Nigerian embassy if they ever tried
this stunt again we would send all Nigerians home." [Statements by
John Dessauer, the former top Citibank official (Swiss branch), as
quoted in THE NIGERIAN, May, 1996, p. 3.]
12. African Herald, July 1998, 12
13. Online Posting. Washington Post: http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/
19980720/v000021-072098-idx.html
14. Henry Bienen, The Military and Modernization, (Chicago:
Aldine, 1978), 221.
|
|
 |
