Western governments view the promotion of democracy as desirable both as an end in itself and because of the widespread belief that democracies do not wage war on one another, that they are less likely to repress their own citizens and that democracy promotes development and growth. Six of the ten worst performers in both the Human Development Index and by GNP per capita are countries which were recently, or are still, at war with themselves.
This chapter, in The Political Economy of Comparative Development into the 21st Century, asks whether democracies are invariably less likely to suffer internal strife, and whether such strife really hampers development. It examines the relationship between democracy, conflict and development, through three case studies: Kenya and Uganda (which have much in common) and Sri Lanka.
The interaction between democracy, development and conflict is much more complex than is commonly supposed. In fact, the belief that democracy and development guarantee peace and stability is wrong.
- The economic and social record of Uganda and Kenya suggest that economic stagnation is the result, as opposed to the cause, of conflict
- Violence does not appear to have resulted from failed development. Relative, rather than absolute, deprivation appears to predispose communities to violence
- Certain democratic systems actually predispose to conflict, for example where one ethnic group constitutes more than half of a country’s population and is therefore able to effectively elect an ethnocratic government
- Democracy is not enough to mitigate conflict. What is required is a system that incorporates all groups and shares development and opportunity equally, so that everyone has a stake in the perpetuation of democratic institutions
- In highly divided post-conflict societies a government of unity, incorporating members from all aspects of society, may be more developmentally orientated than a multi-party democracy
- Domestic ownership of democratic structures is essential if democracy is to prosper and promote peace and development.
Policy relevant implications from the chapter are:
- Even the most successfully engineered democratic structures do not necessarily eliminate conflict, and may even encourage it. Neither will economic growth ensure peace, as legacies of uneven development can fuel conflict
- The two factors most effective in mitigating conflict are (1) a politically inclusive government incorporating people from most or all major groups, and (2) a socio-economic system which ensures that all sectors of society enjoy the benefits of growth, thereby avoiding the destabilising effects of uneven development. What is required is ‘economically inclusive government’
- External actors should be sensitive to context, and should be wary of demanding full democratic structures too quickly. At the outset, they should focus on inclusive government and a respect for basic human rights
- Where there are strong economic and ethnic differences, political parties may use them for their own electoral aims, compromising development. Therefore, economic and social development are often a precondition, rather than a result, of democracy
- Focusing exclusively or primarily on promoting democracy from outside does not work. Outsiders play a more effective role in monitoring abuses of power and promoting shared development through aid and policy conditionality.
