Is Democracy the Engine of Economic
Growth?
Prof. Bedford N.
Umez, Ph.D.*
Introduction
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
