By DARLINGTON CHILUBA
THE concept of democracy has the advantage of appearing very disarming and gives the impression that it is a people-led system of government that thrives on equity.
It does not readily allude to any form of violence, nor does it espouse those revolutionary tenets of overthrowing governments, which are associated with socialist and communist schools.
Instead, democracy innocuously fronts the idea that confrontation should be conducted within institutions of government such as parliament; that disagreements can be resolved at the ballot, swiftly avoiding much mention of usurping existing governing structures outside electoral frameworks.
Internationally, only socialism was mainly exported as an alternative form of government until 1989 when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which was the home of socialism, collapsed.
After that, democracy was exported without real challenge to Eastern Europe and Africa, with Zambia and Ghana becoming the first two African nations to embrace democratic governments in the early 1990s. The proxy wars in Africa, South America and Asia fought mainly by the USSR and North America did not immediately cease, but it seemed that democratic superpowers now had an unchecked advantage to export democracy militarily and defend their allies the same way – militarily.
The creation of regional bodies that enhanced trade among nations and continents cemented democracy and free trade as the way to go to achieve prosperity.
It appeared, at one time, that nations such as China and North Korea, who did not immediately or soon-after democratise their governments in those 1990s, would eventually cave in. That it was a matter of time.
The growth of the world economy in that period, led by technological advancements in personal computers, mobile phones and the ability to trade across the globe by the click of a button made the idea of democracy more attractive.
Globalisation was in full swing and countries that embraced free-market policies received millions of dollars in Foreign Direct Investment – Malaysia is an example.
Indeed, democracy, as a system that values individuals in society, is one of the better forms of governing nations. However, embedded democracy is better because it alludes to the unique aspects of each country. It accepts that democracy will not look the same everywhere.
In other words, it is normal to import economic structures such as commercialisation or privatisation, and political philosophies such as deregulation (or Keynesian economics), to create efficiencies in government. But it may not be ideal to import foreign cultures into a pre-existing societal structure.
Let’s take two examples: Japan is the third largest economy and a free-market, democratic state. The United States of America (USA) was the architect of this growth after the Second World War to counter the growth of Socialism and Communism in Asia, especially with Russia and China being active in that region.
One of the most severe attempts to change Japanese culture and societal structure by the USA was to curtail the authority of the Emperor. This had its own results but overall did not erase Japanese culture or replace it with American culture.
Inarguably, even after western driven modernisation, Japanese culture remains entrenched in that environment. In short, they imported political and economic structures but retained their societal heritage.
Pakistan is another democratic country that also identifies as an Islamic Republic. It adheres to a democratic parliamentary system with a President as Head of State and an executive Prime Minister.
While the idea and religion of Islam does not immediately ring democracy to others, Pakistan has merged the two in its own unique way, showing that reverence for God does not infringe on the right of people to self-determination.
Similarly, such is Zambia in its place as a Christian and democratic state, embracing the reality of God while admitting the right to self-determination of its citizens in the constitution.
The lesson is the same, imported political and economic ideas must not usurp pre-existing societal norms.
A democratic system of government should encourage a reflective state so that the needs of society are generally represented at national level. It cannot be democracy, ultimately, if government represents foreign interests and intentions of those who either do not vote in that country or will not be severely affected by adverse economic and political conditions.
Further, if government must be reflective of its environment, then those who vote must be duly informed of the state of affairs.
This speaks to the power of language. Botswana, Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania have largely done better than most countries to retain the use of local languages in their systems of government so that culture is reflected and respected at the highest levels of state and policy making.
This does not mean that economic development will be easier, it speaks to being reflective and inclusive.
Until we re-empathise the value of our own unique societal structures in the democratic space, we may be forced to keep importing foreign cultures and ideals that do not build or identify with who we are.
In this regard, some of most potent words spoken in the body of African politics by first Namibian President Dr Samuel Nujoma in 2000 that ‘there was no such thing as Democracy or Human Rights before any African country gained independence’ will keep haunting us.
These words are not only accurate in their historical assessment of fact but are essential to building and retaining understanding that governments exist to represent the historical societal value of their domestic environment.
Moreso, democracy is not truly democratic if it stands aloof to its own milieu. It is welcome to import an idea, it is unforgivable to ignore our own historical and cerebral quality.
Author
